Managing Chinese Threat

[svinayak]

My learning of History is a bit lacking, but from what I Know of NAZI Germany & Facist Italy before WW2 and their conduct of International affairs, is making me draw a parallel between them and PRC.

Dont know if my parallel is accurate or not.

It is true that this could become a era of fascist China, a fascist Pakistan and ultimately a fascist America. This is as simple. The world has to bear the burden

[SriSri]

Gentle Rakshaks,

Last sunday, I spoke at a private forum on the multi-dimensional threat that China poses to India. It was attended by over 40 corporate executive types. To many what I presented was an eye opener and in the last week many have called and written in appreciating the presentation.

I have prepared the presentation with a lot of inputs gleaned from this thread and the PRC thread. Many thanks. I have also directed the audience to visit these forums to get a better perspective on matters of national interests rather than forming views by an often incompetent and biased media in India.

Special thanks to ramana, SSridhar for their guidance and inputs. The deck is available on slide share (kept it downloadable - search for rajaram.muthukrishnan) and also on my blog - Musings of an Ordinary Indian

http://rajaram-india.blogspot.com/2010/ ... at-to.html

Please feel free to use this presentation and improve upon it. The message needs to get out there.

Great presentation, thanks.

PS: Works for me properly.

[RajeshA]

One can understand making a example about of a very minor power to scare others...

You can take this to the bank: The purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacy

One could say that the purpose of torture is sadistic satisfaction.

On the street level, I could agree with you, but I think that some thinking does go in into Chinese behavior. They use an economy of words and are not wont to react off the cuff.

Just like torture is instrumentalized, so too is bullying.

Not disagreeing with what China is doing, but one ought to think about why China is doing...

Possibilities:

1. It wants to show other countries in the region who is boss, but flip side this behavior
will only cause the opposite effect.

2. It has internal inadequacies that is causing it to deflect internal concerns to external issues.

I am not a betting man, but I'd put money on 2.

I agree with both possibilities.

When USA made Japan into a subservient poodle, it opened for PRC a ideal means to kill several birds with one stone.

1. Humiliate Japan, without any fear of retaliation.
2. Build a nationalist constituency in PRC by feeding hate for the Japanese.
3. Using Japan as an example, instill the fear of PRC into others.
4. Use bullying of USA's poodles to put oneself in USA's league.
5. Play on Japan's guilty conscience and get investment and aid from it.

So of course, any regime would want to divert people's attention from internal problems by focusing on external threats, real or imaginary. PRC does it as well. Just as Pakistan does it. The fact that PRC has internal problems is not a revelation made possible by its bullying behavior. That is noticeable, even without it.

What I want to say is, that besides that there is a system to PRC's bullying - it is not a symptom, but rather an instrument.

[Pulikeshi]

^ If China is using bullying as an instrument as you suggest, then it should be the case
that China has not calculated two steps beyond the immediate.

What advantage does China gain if a gang up occurs in Asia against them?
Which by the way already seems inevitable...

[svinayak]

One can understand making a example about of a very minor power to scare others...

You can take this to the bank: The purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacy

One could say that the purpose of torture is sadistic satisfaction.

According to them it is a low cost option. It is all about cost effectiveness.
Changing the behavior is the key for change in geo politics
Military states look at this world view with larger goal of change in geo politics over image and relationship

[Pulikeshi]

Lets see if a scenario can be sketched

As the Yuan rises, and internal pain increases, external bullying increases....

[RajeshA]

^ If China is using bullying as an instrument as you suggest, then it should be the case
that China has not calculated two steps beyond the immediate.

What advantage does China gain if a gang up occurs in Asia against them?
Which by the way already seems inevitable...

Let's assume, they have gamed it. Now why would they think that bullying is more effective than peaceful rise. Let's take each and every country separately.

• Russia: USA is not going to treat it as an equal. There is loss of prestige, and Moscow would for a long time to come grieve over it, and try to come back into the game, expending both Western goodwill and resources. So Moscow would look for a strategic relationship with the Chinese, in the UNSC and in Central Asia, where both can jointly try to both exhaust the will and treasure of USA, as well as to push out its influence. In the mean time, PRC can benefit from Russian mineral resources. Russia would as such not join any anti-Chinese alliance.
• Japan: PRC is benefiting from USA-imposed submissiveness in the Japanese, which has become self-enforcing. The Japanese see USA as its security patron and as such is not willing to carry the burden of its own security. It is a cost-effective means to secure themselves with some checkbook diplomacy. A whole pacifist constituency has taken root in Japan, which would be difficult to shake off. Any Japanese resistance to Chinese aggressive posture is shouted down by the Chinese as constituting old Japanese imperialist sympathies. PRC is quite sure, that Japan would simply seek further protection under USA security umbrella and not develop its own military strength. Moreover Japan is deeply involved with Chinese economy, from which it cannot disentangle quickly. Due to all these factors Japanese cannot offer any alliance anything substantial.
• Korea: The Chinese have factually speaking neutralized any independent course for South Korea. The Anti-Japanese sentiments within South Korea would not allow any substantive alignment with Japan. Secondly there is also a vocal anti-American constituency within South Korea, dampening the prospects of much aggressive posture towards North Korea. North Korea is actually the ideal Chinese paw neutralizing any strategic space for South Korea. As China potentially holds the key to North Korean reasonableness, South Korea becomes dependent on Chinese good offices.
• Taiwan: With every passing year, PRC becomes more threatening and imposing, and Taiwan becomes more intimidated. The Chinese missile arsenal arraigned against Taiwan, plus its repeated threats towards Taiwan has cowered down the Taiwan. China has also entwined Taiwan strongly in the economy of the mainland. Other than that, PRC has found that since the advent DPP, KMT has in fact come closer to PRC, and now almost works in tandem with Beijing for its political survival. So Taiwan too cannot afford to displease Beijing.
• Vietnam: Vietnam remains the only country to have given PRC a bloody nose in modern times. It too is being wooed using business deals, etc. PRC also hopes to moderate their antagonism towards Beijing by controlling other countries in the neighborhood - Laos, Cambodia, etc.
• Indonesia: Indonesia has been advised to not put all their eggs in the American basket, since during the last years of Suharto's rule and East Timorese Independence, America withheld cooperation from Jakarta, and the Indonesians are still burnt from that episode. In fact, the internal politics and communal harmony of Indonesia are so fragile, that it is considered prudent by Indonesia not to give external powers reasons to fish in troubled waters.
• India: Please see Raja Ram's presentation, on how PRC has neutralized India.
• USA: China has practically made USA a drug addict for soft credit, cheap products and captive of US investments in China, leaving USA little room for maneuver. The UNSC card also makes America dependent on Chinese cooperation, especially in face of Russian resistance.
• Europe: European big business depends on Chinese market and they cannot afford to lose it.
• Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, ~Iran: China has virtually become their patron, protecting the regimes from Western pressure on human rights and regime change plans. Support of Chinese UNSC veto has become extremely important for these countries.
• Pakistan: China helps Pakistan to deal with the 'pressure from an overbearing' neighbor.
• Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives: Here PRC presence helps balance the influence of an 'unsavory' but influential neighbor.
• Central Asia: Kazakhstan and other CARs have come under the sway of Chinese business and are more than happy at providing China with Oil & Gas and transit routes.

From where PRC is standing, 'Selective Bullying' can bring PRC more dividends than 'Across-the-Board Good Neighborliness'. All the countries stand isolated, with only a marginal US security cover. If India gets hit, it doesn't bother any other country, and if Taiwan gets taken over, it would only enforce the sense of awe that other countries have for China. Japan has become the small boy, PRC is going to pounce on every now and then to impress all other boys in Asia.

There is a design to this bullying.

Added later: The Chinese use an effective method to boil the frog in the pot(any neighboring society):

1. Slowly increase the heat. (aggressive deployment of forces, aggressive diplomacy, threats of retaliation, proxy wars)
2. Inject a nerve-agent to make nerve endings unresponsive to heat. (media influence, communist parties, diversions through proxy)
3. Make sufficient din outside the pot to cower the frog into staying inside it. (beat Japan, snarl at Taiwan, etc)

[shiv]

You can take this to the bank: The purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacy

I am certain this is true. But bullying has effects that revealing inadequacies, as Indians constantly like doing, does not have.

For example, look away from China at the one power that goes about this earth claiming to be able to take on any other power the USA. The appearance of power is fostered by bullying small states. Larger states are cautioned that they too will be dealt with like the smaller states. In the ultimate analysis the US does not have what it takes to get into a hot war with really large and capable states - and that includes Russia and China. Heck the US admits not being able to take on Pakistan.

But a lot of countries are taken in by US bullying for the simple reason that taking on the bully will be too costly for them just to prove a point that he is a bully. The US bluff had to be called at some time. China is calling that bluff. The US is now cajoling and coaxing all sorts of minor powers to line up against a Chin that the US will not take on directly.

Now I am certain that India too can call China's bluff. The only point that I want to make is that if we are going to call the Chinese bluff we need to call the US bluff as well.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 24, 2010
By Martin Fackler
Japan Retreats With Release of Chinese Boat Captain: New York Times

The decision to free Mr. Zhan appears to end a heated diplomatic standoff that had seen top Chinese leaders make increasingly insistent demands for his release. China had also used its growing economic clout to ratchet up the pressure on Japan, cutting off ministerial-level talks, freezing talks on joint energy development and curtailing tourism and other economic links. However, the release left unresolved the broader issue of how countries in the region will respond to an increasingly powerful and assertive China. In Japan, there was already mounting criticism that by appearing to give into China’s demands, Prime Minister Naoto Kan would only encourage Beijing to become more forceful in the future.

Ends Current Standoff, Makes Future Conflict More Likely

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 24, 2010
By Peter Ford
China fishing boat captain to be freed by Japan. Will it ease tensions?: Christian Science Monitor

"This might have been an unnerving prospect for Japanese economic policymakers, given China’s importance, as export-dependent Japan’s biggest trading partner, to Tokyo’s growth prospects. 'The Japanese economy’s future seems to depend on whether the problem is solved quickly,' Japanese Economy Minister Banri Kaeda told a press conference earlier Friday, before the prosecutor’s announcement."

China Proved Economic Dominance

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 24, 2010
By Gordon G. Chang
China’s New Economic Warfare: Forbes

There is a far more important lesson to be learned here. The West had assumed that China could be integrated into the global system of commerce and, once so enmeshed, it would become benign. Yet nine years after the accession to the World Trade Organization, Beijing appears not to have been constrained by its participation in global trade. During this period, China has become economically powerful, and now, it is using that power to achieve geopolitical goals—in this case to demand from Japan territory over which it has exceedingly weak legal claims. So whatever we may think about free trade or open borders, we have to remember that every economic advantage we extend to China gives its leaders one more tool to advance their geopolitical goals.

China Developing 'Economic Warfare'

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 24, 2010
By Evan Osnos
What Does China’s Dispute with Japan Tell Us About Rule of Law?: New Yorker

Who is piloting the boat? That is, in political terms, who is running China’s handling of the crisis? The Chinese military has been notably out front on this, which is a break from previous cases. ... The rise of special interests has become the signature issue of Chinese politics in 2010. ... If you want to prevent the next crisis with Japan from becoming something far larger and more dangerous, it will mean figuring out how to keep China’s power-players from being more powerful than their own system.

Chinese 'Special Interests' Playing New Role

[Pratyush]

The news report quoted above, makes it clear that the PRC is not a reliable power, when it comes to International relations. Because regardless of what you do as a foreign power, there will be some internal constituency of PRC that will remain dissatisfied with the outcome. If it is the case then that constituency will trigger some crisis or the other in order to get what it wants.

The net effect of all that is you can never be sure when will the PRC be satisfied. This neatly ties in with the observation the PM made regarding the PRC. That things can go either way. IMO, the only way to deal with the PRC in the near future is to be extreamly firm but polite in dealings with the PRC.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 24, 2010
By Ed Flanagan
China – Japan strife spotlights a strategic U.S. vulnerability: NBC

An April 2010 Government Accountability Office study put the shift to Chinese dominance in the rare earth minerals market in stark terms: “The United States previously performed all stages of the rare earth material supply chain, but now most rare earth materials processing is performed in China, giving it a dominant position that could affect worldwide supply and prices.”

The report spells out the consequences of China’s near monopoly of the supply of rare earth minerals, but also notes that rebuilding a U.S. rare earth supply chain could take as long as 15 years and would require “securing capital investments in processing infrastructure, developing new technologies, and acquiring patents, which are currently held by international companies.”

The embarrassing revelation that critical parts for top American military weapon systems such as General Dynamics’s M1A2 Abrams tank and Lockheed Martin’s Aegis SPY-1 radar brought about a call for congressional hearings on the issue, but it could be decades before an American supply chain for rare earth materials is rebuilt.

Change of dominance
The United States was not always so dependent on other countries for its mineral needs.

During the post-World War II era, as the need for uranium for atomic weapons to compete in the Cold War arms race grew, a rush of mineral prospecting took place throughout the southwest United States.

The discovery of sizable deposits of rare earth minerals, like flourocarbonate bastnaesite in the U.S. during the 1940s, proved to be of little use for uranium enrichment for bombs. But an element derived from bastnaesite, europium, was found to be essential for the production of the cathode ray tubes required for early color televisions.

With that, the industry exploded in the United States as major mineral companies like Molycorp Minerals took the lead in the extraction and trade of rare earth metals. Other American conglomerates – notably General Motors, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Corp – quickly developed new uses for the metals, among them sophisticated new lasers, night-vision goggles and improved radar.

Despite a wealth of rare earth minerals in the U.S., the manufacture of the minerals has become dominated by China.
In an intriguing report written earlier this year for the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, researchers looked into the 1995 sale of Magnequench. The company was formed in 1986 by GM to manufacture neodymium-iron-boron magnets – powerful magnets that are used in everything from car engines to electrical power steering.

In 1995, two Chinese companies, likely seeing the potential military application of the product and catching GM as it was attempting to break into the Chinese market, acquired Magnequench for $70 million. The sale was approved by the U.S. government with the stipulation that the buyers keep the company in its hometown of Anderson, Indiana for five years.
The day after that deal expired in 2002, the Chinese company shut down the entire operation, shipped all its manufacturing equipment and resumed operations in China.

The research report noted, “In less than one decade, the permanent magnet market experienced a complete shift in leadership.”

The Magnequench sale represented a titanic shift in the competitive advantage of the United States and set the scene for the loss of America’s manufacturing dominance in the rare earth mineral industry.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 25, 2010
By Allison Jackson
China demands compensation as skipper returns: Brisbane Times

Beijing on Saturday demanded an apology and compensation from Tokyo over the "unlawful" detention of a Chinese trawlerman that sparked a major diplomatic row, but Japan quickly rejected the call.

On the same day the skipper arrived home, China's foreign ministry said the disputed islands at the centre of the standoff were Beijing's "inherent territory" and Tokyo's actions were illegal and invalid.

"(The arrest) seriously infringed upon China's territorial sovereignty and violated the human rights of Chinese citizens," the ministry said in a statement.

"Japan's detention, investigation or any form of judiciary measures for the Chinese trawler and fishermen are unlawful and invalid," it said, adding: "The Japanese side must make apology and compensation for the incident."

That's what you get for showing appeasement to the bully!

[Pratyush]

Accomodation had limits apeasment doesnot. Right now we are seeing too much of apeasment.

[Arjun]

Now I am certain that India too can call China's bluff. The only point that I want to make is that if we are going to call the Chinese bluff we need to call the US bluff as well.

Hear you loud and clear! AmirKhan is the bigger of the two evils and we need to focus on calling the US' bluff, rather than China's. Guess that puts you in the MK Bhadrakumar camp.

You might want to petition the mods for another thread on managing the US threat, or on discusing which is the bigger evil! In the meantime, this thread is meant for managing the Chinese threat / calling its bluff - and posts from RajeshA and others have been very illuminative. Lets not get sidetracked from the purpose of this thread.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 24, 2010
By Josh Rogin
Has China realized it overplayed its foreign policy hand?: Foreign Policy

The Chinese government is secretly reaching out to the Obama administration with the message that they want to improve strained U.S.-China relations ahead of President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington next January.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed Thursday that the Chinese Communist Party leader will make a state visit to Washington to hold a summit with President Obama in January, although no specific date has been set. Hu and Obama met Thursday on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, amid increasing regional angst at what the Obama administration and several East Asian countries see as China's increasingly aggressive and arrogant foreign policy.

Recently, the Chinese have been sending out "Track 2" messages, or informal communiqués, to the United States, indicating that they now want to restart military-to-military relations, which were established in 2009 but cut off by Beijing earlier this year, an administration official told The Cable. In response, the administration is dispatching an interagency team led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer to Beijing next week to meet with Chinese officials.

The Obama administration does not want the military relationship between the two countries to become a bargaining chip that the Chinese can use to voice their displeasure with U.S. policy. Their argument is that military cooperation is in both countries' interests -- not a reward. If China agrees to restart cooperation without any direct incentives, that's a win for the Obama team.

"From our perspective we believe a stable and reliable mil to mil relationship is in the interests of both countries," the official said. "We want something that is continuous through times of friction, with crisis management mechanisms to avoid conflict. The lack of consistent dialogue increases the risks of miscalculation or misunderstanding."

There are several recent actions by the Chinese that have alienated their neighbors. In addition to trying to assert control over the South China Sea, a move that angered Southeast Asian leaders, Beijing also ruined its relationship with South Korea by supporting North Korea after the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan.

This month, China took retaliatory measures against Japan after Tokyo arrested a Chinese boat captain for ramming his ship against Japanese Coast Guard boats near the disputed Senkaku Islands. This is another example of what many see as Beijing overplaying its hand and taking its new international confidence too far.

"This sort of behavior by the Chinese is not exactly winning hearts and minds in the region. You can have a policy difference without engaging in dangerous behavior," the official said.

The Obama administration has made a deliberate and calculated shift in its approach to China over the last few months, deciding to resist more forcefully Chinese efforts to expand their influence and control over regional issues, and to coordinate their China policy more closely with regional allies and partners.

The first public display of this new approach surfaced when Defense Secretary Robert Gates lambasted the Chinese People's Liberation Army for cutting off military to military relations during his trip to Singapore in May.

"The PLA is significantly less interested in this relationship than the political leadership of China," Gates said after being refused permission to visit China as part of that trip.

The second major public display of the Obama administration's new approach was when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shocked the Chinese leadership by announcing that the United States would lead a multilateral effort to resist Chinese claims of ownership of the South China Sea. Several Southeast Asian nations rose up in support of the U.S. action.

"The Obama administration's approach to the South China Sea was a very important and well-crafted response to Chinese assertiveness. Such strength is a vital element of our China strategy, and sends a message to Beijing that the United States will protect its interests," said Abe Denmark, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

China watchers see Beijing's secret outreach to Washington as a realization that they overplayed their hand and are now trying to do some damage control.

"There was that period toward the end of last year and the beginning of this year when the popular thinking in China was that the U.S. had run its course and China had more leverage and so can push their agenda a bit. Now there's a move to tamp down the Chinese sense of triumphalism," said Charles Freeman Jr., who holds the Freeman Chair (no relation) for China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Freeman sees the administration's shift as not really a change in policy so much as a change in attitude.

"[The Obama administration] has less interest in sucking up and showing deference to China, because that didn't work, but there's been no official shift in policy. It's just that they're a little fed up with the arrogance," he said.

Not all China hands are convinced that Beijing is ready to play nice, especially in light of the ongoing spat with Japan, in which Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has committed the United States to support Tokyo.

"After this latest case with Japan, they haven't learned very much," said Dan Blumenthal, a former Pentagon official who worked on China policy and is now with the American Enterprise Institute. "I don't think there's a realization in China that they've overplayed their hand. They're causing all the countries around the region to fear them and want more involvement by the U.S."

The problem is US's protective cover over the nations of East Asia against Chinese aggressive posture is only to strengthen America's hands. America gets all the sway over these countries that any protector would expect, but does not really need to do much for these countries, as the war never heats up, and in 'peace' time, America gives China a free run to intimidate its allies and bruise them, for that is actually in America's interest, as all these allies come running to America looking for cover.

But the damage is done to these countries who want to play by the international rule book but find themselves constantly intimidated by China.

They need to look for another alliance, an Asian Security Alliance amongst themselves and countries like India.

[shiv]

They need to look for another alliance, an Asian Security Alliance amongst themselves and countries like India.

What would an India China alliance do?

[RajeshA]

They need to look for another alliance, an Asian Security Alliance amongst themselves and countries like India.

What would an India China alliance do?

Actually I was referring to a security alliance with India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam at its core and Australia and Singapore as additional members. The USA should be kept out of the primary membership of this alliance. Let's call this alliance the Asian Security Alliance (ASA).

The Alliance can have an additional association with USA, as USA is in any case the security guarantor for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (an ASA-USA Association).

The ASA should be built up over time into a form of NATO for Asia, and each country should try to support every other member in building up their economic and military prowess, as well as giving diplomatic support when under pressure. The mission for the alliance is to keep PRC from exerting inappropriate and undue pressure on other Asian countries. Each member should build up its military independent of US security umbrella.

I did not speak of an India-China alliance.

[Arihant]

They need to look for another alliance, an Asian Security Alliance amongst themselves and countries like India.

What would an India China alliance do?

Unthinkable...

[Arihant]

What would an India China alliance do?

Actually I was referring to a security alliance with India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam at its core and Australia and Singapore as additional members. The USA should be kept out of the primary membership of this alliance. Let's call this alliance the Asian Security Alliance (ASA).

The Alliance can have an additional association with USA, as USA is in any case the security guarantor for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (an ASA-USA Association).

The ASA should be built up over time into a form of NATO for Asia, and each country should try to support every other member in building up their economic and military prowess, as well as giving diplomatic support when under pressure. The mission for the alliance is to keep PRC from exerting inappropriate and undue pressure on other Asian countries. Each member should build up its military independent of US security umbrella.

I did not speak of an India-China alliance.

A fine idea. Particularly if it evolves into a muscular NATO-like entity....

[Arihant]

[Added later: The Chinese use an effective method to boil the frog in the pot(any neighboring society):

1. Slowly increase the heat. (aggressive deployment of forces, aggressive diplomacy, threats of retaliation, proxy wars)
2. Inject a nerve-agent to make nerve endings unresponsive to heat. (media influence, communist parties, diversions through proxy)
3. Make sufficient din outside the pot to cower the frog into staying inside it. (beat Japan, snarl at Taiwan, etc)

Recall that other pearl of Chinese wisdom: "Kill the chicken to scare the monkey"...

[shiv]

What would an India China alliance do?

Unthinkable...

You mean as yet unthought of.

[Hari Seldon]

You mean as yet unthought of.

Not really.

Hard to imagine if any desi PM starting from Nehru onwards hasn't sweet-dreamt of a Indi-cheeni bomhomie.

Also hard to imagine if any and every such geela sapna wasn't snubbed hard and cold everytime by Beijing. All they needed do was tell Yindia to play second fiddle - i.e. rent its butt out a la TSP and NoKo only. Anything less than an alliance of equals is unacceptable to Nai Dilli (perhaps, and only perhaps, justifiably so).

Anyway, time will tell where this is going. Cheena has shown in the past it can grin-and-bear-it and keep its trap shut when it needs to. That they now strut and show aggression means they prolly no longer need to play the discretion card.

[RajeshA]

Continuing from People's Republic of China Nov 22, 2009 Thread

How does one distinguish the two cases?

1. West playing India, to check Chinese influence, and further their own interests.
2. India taking the assistance of West, to push back PRC's anti-India designs.

Let me put my view in the following manner:

What is the meaning of "India taking the assistance of West, to push back PRC's anti-India designs"?

What help is India taking? Let's say India is paying good money to the west for arms. India has managed to "buy off" the west in terms of a nuclear deal - but that gives us zilch in terms of extra nuclear deterrence. We get moral and diplomatic support against China? Maybe.

Ultimately we may have a military force to hold China at the borders and take out her string of pearls. Fine.

But which are the nations that can hit India and make things very difficult for India in case of war?

China is one - but hey the west is helping us.
Pakistan? The west is helping Pakistan

And even if you exclude these two you have the US sitting in bases in Diego Garcia, Pakistan and aircrfat carrier groups on the prowl. The US can take out critical targets in India any time. The US can restrict and take out critical Indian navy assets. We are nothing until we can dictate terms to any power. Don't forget the US. If you intend to forget/ignore the US - then stop being paranoid about China - a much less powerful and equally malicious power. How can we howl so miserable about China and delude ourselves about western powers. Just see the snake oil being thrown at us by their think tanks. And their restrictions. Stapled visas are nothing in comparison. Like a petulant child stamping his feet.

What is there to stop the US?

Goodwill? Hey I thought goodwill and Panchsheel etc are all useless Indian wet dreams? We scoff at such ideas with regard to China - but we completely ignore the huge mammoth in the room - the US. And we delude ourselves that "we are taking their help". They help only so much as it helps them One step beyond and they will supply China with something to screw us.

So please lets not delude ourselves. Power is power. The greater your independent power the better. The greater your ability to make the other power seek your help to fight a third party, the better it is for you.

shiv saar,
Somehow in my world view I don't really see a USA that would still be projecting the kind of power it does in the next 20-30 years.

By 2030 some are expecting China's economy to overtake that of USA. China is the big boss of the coming future. My apprehensions are that when China does become the big boss and starts to overwrite the existing World Order, India is going to get the short end of stick.

A USA that is not the biggest economic power of the world, and has China on its tail to overtake it militarily would be needing other means to balance China. China would be laying claim to its backyard - East China Sea, Yellow Sea and South China Sea, and all the countries that border it. When US retreats, all these countries would fall to the mercy of China and it is becoming ever more clear what such an Asian Order would entail.

So as USA walks into the sunset over the next 20 years or so, India should use USA's current strength and technological lead to strengthen ourselves. What India wants is a Duopoly in Asia.. India is lagging at least a decade behind China but that is an enormous drawback, because it means China has already started to carve up Asia as it wants, and by the time, if at all, we come closer, China would have established an Asian Order adverse to our interests, to keep us down.

The reason, why I am not so keen about going after America is simply because I think India is in a position to extract major concessions from USA as USA starts losing ground to China and becomes frightful of it. When USA really wants something, they start throwing money and other concessions at it as if there is no tomorrow. Just look at how much they have already thrown into the Iraqi ands and the Afghanistan quagmire, not to speak of Pakistani pit of snakes. Once they get nervous about the Chinese, there are a lot of goodies for the taking.

Mostly these are the American market and American technology, especially military technology. Why is it so important? Well because that is the only way of closing the gap between China and India quickly enough.

When we deal with America, we should look at its future trajectory, and not be mired in the past. It is a power on the wane and would need to make major concessions to the countries it wishes to keep as its allies, e.g. India.

If China can close the gap with America, then we too can close the gap with China. Keeping India quasi-allied to the United States is simply strategy to keep our rates of growth high, keep our defense hedged while we are at a military-disadvantage.

Of course America has not bought into this possible future, when it will lose its predominant position. They are still fighting the wars they allowed themselves to falter into. They are still hanging on to their 'assets' like the Pakistani Army, who are there only to suck the last drops of blood in the veins that America has cut up for them, even as these 'assets' have long been taken over by PRC. Only USA does not want to recognize the new emerging reality and would still resist. The whore has moved on. There is already a perceptible shift in power.

This does not imply that the shift has already taken place, either in the power equations or US's perceptions of itself, and for a time, USA would continue to keep the aura of its reign, live beyond its means and shower largess onto its hangers on. Much of this behavior may not suit India, but the old man still has some treasure to give, just the kind that we will need to catch up to the wannabe hegemon of Asia - China. We are trying to tell the old man, he need not worry. We will take good care of him.

So why should I want to push the old man down a stairs before I have secured his inheritance in his will?

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 22, 2010
By Chidanand Rajghatta
From Third World country to third most powerful nation: TOI

The report shows growing concern among Indian officials and analysts about China as they worry about an ''absence of an internal equilibrium in Asia to ensure stability.'' India, they concede, is not well positioned to help develop regional institutions for Asia given China's preponderant role in the region.

As a result, the report says, India is primarily interested in transforming global governance institutions. ''The Indians thought existing international organizations are 'grossly inadequate' to deal with mounting challenges...Many hoped the United States would continue to be very much part of the Asian region as a political, economic, and military power,'' the report observes.

It also cites some Indian experts fearing that a system developed by the West, which includes democracy and rule of law, would suffer as the East (read China) becomes more powerful. ''It would be a pity if the West does not hang together to influence the future,'' an Indian interlocutor is quoted as saying.

[RajeshA]

Report by US National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)

Global Governance 2025

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 23, 2010
By Philip Bowring
A Comeback in the Pacific: International Herald Tribune

Asean itself may be little more than a talk-shop on to which trade and cultural agreements have been bolted. But Washington now recognizes that engaging it as a group enables the United States to compete at least in part with a China, which has a trade agreement with Asean.

It also serves as a reminder to China, as well as to the Asean countries themselves, that most member states have military cooperation deals with the United States that provide immensely valuable logistical support for U.S. forces in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The Obama administration’s attempt to engage with the oppressive regime in Myanmar is also viewed positively by other Asean members, and India. Although the United States has called the approaching elections unfair and undemocratic, Washington acknowledges both the ineffectiveness of sanctions and the possibility of positive change in Myanmar. In turn that could lead to Myanmar reducing its reliance on China, currently its closest ally.

[Prem]

With regards to China threat , almost everyone assumes the decline of USA /WEST, falling below PRC in power , presitige and "Paisa". Chinese prosperity depends a lot on their export to WEST and they need these clients. Onlee other market is India and rest of Asia. PRC has threatend or pissed off everyone except Bookha- nanga NOKO and POaksters. China dont seems to know how to handle power in this 21 century . If Indian economic growth remains on the same trajectory ( it will get better onlee) and the benefit of population buldge kicks in along with minimum military,strategic balance , PRC threat will evaporate withing few years before it can even become detrimental for india .And if Chinese are practical people, they will themselves come calling with strategic gifts. All India need to do is to just hang around using the staying power and keep every option open. Just quadrupling of our economy will take the wind out of any Chinese dream sail. Our economic weaknesses are now being addressed and soon afterward the political weaknesses.

[RajeshA]

Published on Aug 30, 2010
By Dr. Subhash Kapila
Vietnam Firmly Emerges In US Strategic Calculus: Eurasia Review

By 2004-2005 events in East Asia clearly indicated that China was not a responsible stakeholder in East Asia stability and was intent on carving out East Asia as an exclusive Chinese sphere of influence excluding United States from the region and forcing regional states like Vietnam, Japan and South Korea to adjust strategically and politically to its ambitions.

The United States having woken up to this reality and Vietnam having been persistently mauled militarily by China in the South China Sea disputing Vietnamese sovereignty over more than half of the islands scattered in the South China Sea, has resulted in the middle of 2010 for the United States and Vietnam to edge more closer strategically.

In a befitting finale to the process of normalization of US-Vietnam relations initiated by President Clinton it was left to his lady wife, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to articulate the underpinnings of United States intentions to add strategic contours to this relationship.

Without going overboard, what one can safely assert at this stage is that if both the United States and Vietnam invest strategic value to their emerging relationship this could emerge as a “game changer” in East Asia security environment.

I also think, that India-Vietnam relations should be the cornerstone of India's South East Asia Security Policy.

[ramana]

From time Chiang Kai Shek visited Mahatma Gandhi in Poona, the dea of China India compact has always driven Indian policy. PRC in Tibet, Bandung Conf, Panch Sheel, UN SC seat refusal, etc, etc..However PRC is yet to see the benefits and hence does its lizard act.

Japan has reacted to the fishing boat and minerals issue. However Indian non reaction has confused the PRC and whoever wants to watch.

[Sanjay M]

India-Vietnam relations would have to be supplemented with India-Cambodia relations, since China has previously been able to use Cambodia as a base for conflict with Vietnam.
Look how many Khmer Rouge officials are still in power in Cambodia.

[shiv]

So as USA walks into the sunset over the next 20 years or so, India should use USA's current strength and technological lead to strengthen ourselves. What India wants is a Duopoly in Asia.. India is lagging at least a decade behind China but that is an enormous drawback, because it means China has already started to carve up Asia as it wants, and by the time, if at all, we come closer, China would have established an Asian Order adverse to our interests, to keep us down.

The reason, why I am not so keen about going after America is simply because I think India is in a position to extract major concessions from USA as USA starts losing ground to China and becomes frightful of it. When USA really wants something, they start throwing money and other concessions at it as if there is no tomorrow. Just look at how much they have already thrown into the Iraqi ands and the Afghanistan quagmire, not to speak of Pakistani pit of snakes. Once they get nervous about the Chinese, there are a lot of goodies for the taking.

Frankly Rajesh - there may be something wrong with me but I am deeply offended by what seem to me to be idiotic summaries of the world by analysts who speak of China wanting a monopoly and in turn people like us internalizing that distracting handwave and concluding that India wants a duopoly.

I would like to be shown any (translated) Chinese documents in which the Chinese say that they want a monopolar China based world or Asia so I can change my mind and start thinking differently. What I have seen so far is non Chinese analysts seeing Chinas rapid expansion and rapid moves to corner resources for her expansion as signs that China wants to dominate the world. And that, I have been told is bad.

So what is good? When the US of 20 years ago used to consume more than the next 20 countries put together - it was good.

Today, when the US alone consumes as much oil as the next 6 countries - China, Japan, Russia, India and Germany - it is called a "decline". And with Chinese oil consumption becoming 1/3 of that of the US - China is seen as a greedy grabber. The US remains "good".

The USA will never reduce its avarice for world resources. Any other nation that makes even remotely similar demands on the world is seen as bad. If India joins the US and China among the top 3 oil consumers - the US will still be up in front and the US will be playing off China and India and promoting talk like "Have a duopoly or else China will want monopoly". heck how blind are we. The monopoly is the US. Not China. The US consumes 6 times more oil per capita than China. The fact that the China oil consumption figure has risen from 1% of US consumption in the past to its current 12 % is being portrayed as a threat to the world - and China is stupid enough to fall into the US's trap.

But screw China and the US. What of pipsqueak India? India's per capita oil consumption is less than 6% of the US figure

No look at this situation:

US per capita oil consumption : 100 units
China oil per capita oil consumption: 12 units
India per capita oil consumption: 6 units

The US has no intention of cutting down its consumption but the "duopoly" is between India and China? The US will oppose India and China tooth an nail as they try to develop independent sources for their energy. In order to keep their oil costs down the US will agree for India to have nuke power plants but imposes restrictions if the nuke power can be used as coercive power to threaten the US.

Exactly what is this lungi dance we are setting up with China? Oh I accept the Chinese are a threat. But the Chinese are also stupid. I cannot see Sun Tzu anywhere on the horizon. Not even Moon Tzu. They got a development edge in this world by allowing themselves to move to the side of the greedy and powerful US in the cold war. The Chinese have made a few people wealthy and made a few glass and concrete cities and think they are equal equal to US now. But the minute they started getting a bit too big for their shoes the US has started "balancing" them - exploting their fights against Japan, Taiwan, Vientam and India. And the Chinese have been fed with too much info about their own greatness so they see all these pipsqueak nations as a threat while the big bad boy USA remains "engaged with China".

Hey, the USA was "engaged" with Indian in 1962. But they gifted Pakistan with 10 squadrons of Sabres and several hundred Patton tanks. And the US is engaged with India now - while Pakistan gets AMRAAMs and F-16s and AWACS and aid to pay China for Chinese arms.

And China is our main threat? We are going to be satisfied with a "duopoly equal equal" with China?

The USA has the power to tilt the balance any which way.

In an India-China conflict India has the power to stop Chinese shipping in the Indian ocean. But the US can stop India from doing that

In a US-China conflict the US can stop Chinese oil supplies in the Indian ocean. And India cannot stop the US.

All of us have internalized and accepted the benevolent goodness of the west and the USA. The USA was already the prime world power by 1947 and rose even higher after that. It had already cornered most of the world's resources and we didn't need much. So the US was benevolent.

Now, as India grows and needs more resources we are playing ourselves off against China, with both countries being egged on by psyops from the US. If the US and China conspire to form a duopoly they will keep India down as they have done in the past. The Chinese threat is only a blindfold that hides the sharp edge of the US sword. I don't think the Chinese threat can be taken in isolation any more than the Pakistani threat can be taken in isolation. We ignore the US and speak of the US as an old man at our peril.

[csharma]

shiv, In general what you are saying is true but don't you think that post the downturn in the US and the West, the equations have changed somewhat. You also have to look at absolute numbers and not just per capita.

US oil consumption in 2008: 19,500 thousand barrels a day
China : 7,800 thousand barrels a day
India : 2,960 tbad

Also, China's focus is smaller compared to US. US has to win in Iraq, Afghanistan and yet maintain supremacy in other parts of the world. I am not doubting the ability of US to prevail. But the numbers are that badly stacked against China. Even India is not insignificant.

India has to be wary of American attempts to pull India into orbit and provoke Sino-Indian conflict through psy-ops.

Following is what KS is saying

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ew/409154/

Forecasters assume India’s growth rate will overtake China’s in the years to come. No doubt it will take a long time for India to close the gap between itself and China. That is not likely for several decades to come, perhaps not in the 21st century. The US will continue to be the pre-eminent world power but with China narrowing the gap between itself and the US.

[krisna]

^^^^
I agree with Shiv.
US is the one playing off with other countries to maintain their supremacy for all times. It plays off TSP vs India and India vs china.
what can India do---
India has to contend with TSP and dragon. Both are looking the same nowadays.
For India its immediate danger is in the TSP and dragon which includes military adventure also. geographically they are our neighbours whereas US is not.
TSP is rabidly anti India. Dragon helps TSP as it suits it nicely to box India.
Options for India---
India can take on smaller powers ( commensurate with its strength) and go from there.
In this scheme of things India should put down TSP despite its 3.5 friends shoring it up. Later it has to take on the smaller of the other powers and so on.....
Good thing is US is distant from us geographically and not neighbours. We can be regional powers without disturbing Uncle for sometime. Uncle would not mind it as long as the work done by India is not threatening like the dragon.
We have to create checks and balances with US so that it leans more towards us than TSP in short run and against china in long run.
Uncle is a diplomatic and not military threat.
Uncle would play diplomatically onlee as India is not Iraq or afghanistan for military action.
Hence the greater danger militarily and diplomatically is from our neighbours.

If TSP is strong then India will be continuously boxed in south asia.
What would US and dragon do if TSP falls---
US may hitch onto Indian bandwagon and goad us to take on dragon beacuse the nearest competitor will be dragon.
Meanwhile it will propr up some remnants of TSP if still strong against India and so on.....
Dragon--it will be a major setback because of economic potential and the only major country to box India in south asia. Instability in the remnants will pose a major threat to its scheme of using the road oil pipes and ports etc. It will be a loss. Not to mention a islamic terrorism spill over to xinjaing is more likely than with a strong TSPA.


China has to be boxed in east asia otherwise it will come out through IOR and become formidable to US with time.
Hence US is trying to keep pressure on china thru alliances in east asia and asean nations like vietnam.

TSP holds the key for India to come out of it. In somewhat ironical way if TSP falls china will get the shivers as Burma will get more attention from Indian POV. China's quest for IOR will be in serious jeopardy.

IMHO
1) China is somewhat reacting more to internal pressures than to the external threats, thereby creating a mess of all around it.
2) Overall US is trying to keep both future powers in their respective geographical areas by propping rival powers in their regions.
Very clever indeed.

[Prem]

Just take Baluchistan out of Poak-Panda control and all of their plans fall apart.

[shiv]

shiv, In general what you are saying is true but don't you think that post the downturn in the US and the West, the equations have changed somewhat. You also have to look at absolute numbers and not just per capita.

US oil consumption in 2008: 19,500 thousand barrels a day
China : 7,800 thousand barrels a day
India : 2,960 tbad

Look at absolute numbers versus time.

Look at the same figures from say 2001 till today

2001 figure:
USA 19000
China 4500
India 2100

Average the figure and multiply by 8 for 8 years

USA 152,000 tbbl
China 47,000 tbbl
India 20,000 tbbl

The US's consumption is more than twice that of India and china together, for a population that is 1/8th of India and China together.

Whichever way you cut it, the US's wealth and luxury and lifestyle are dependent of squeezing more from the world than anyone else. If I was a beneficiary - I would demand from my senator that my lifestyle does not take a hit just because some Chinese gooks and Indian niggers are grabbing more oil.

That senator will have to implement that via US power. That means ensuring safe, uninterrupted and sustained flow to the US. That means control over sources. As long as India and China are fighting, China can never get safe access via the overland route. If India and China cooperated to get oil for both nations - the gooks and niggers would be a threat to freedom, democracy and the American way (So help me God)

[Sanjay M]

China repeats apology demand after Japan frees fisherman
Reuters

By Lucy Hornby and Chisa Fujioka Lucy Hornby And Chisa Fujioka – 1 hr 35 mins ago

BEIJING/TOKYO (Reuters) – China pushed its demand for an apology from Japan for detaining a Chinese fishing trawler captain, showing no sign of an end to the row after Japan released the captain and said no apology was necessary.

[Hari Seldon]

The US's consumption is more than twice that of India and china together, for a population that is 1/8th of India and China together.

Whichever way you cut it, the US's wealth and luxury and lifestyle are dependent of squeezing more from the world than anyone else. If I was a beneficiary - I would demand from my senator that my lifestyle does not take a hit just because some Chinese gooks and Indian niggers are grabbing more oil.

That senator will have to implement that via US power. That means ensuring safe, uninterrupted and sustained flow to the US. That means control over sources. As long as India and China are fighting, China can never get safe access via the overland route. If India and China cooperated to get oil for both nations - the gooks and niggers would be a threat to freedom, democracy and the American way (So help me God)

Wow. +1 only.