Managing Chinese Threat

[shiv]

The fear of being played, means India never plays!

Actually no nation, not even India can afford to "not play" because others are playing all the time. The consequence of being played by two powers is that it restricts the openings that one has to play a successful game and increases the chances of playing a pointless game.

In that sense India has played the game well with Pakistan. India has "not played' when playing was a disadvantage and India has played only when playing gives tangible benefit. The fact that benefits seem so slow to come is exactly illustrative of the fact that the opening available for a successful game are few and far between.

I have used two expressions here that carry ambiguous meaning: One is "successful game" and the other is "tangible benefit" . If you define tangible benefit you can talk of what game might be a "successful game" to gain the tangible benefit. That is all that is being debated here.

Playing for the sake of playing with no regard for winning is pointless in geopolitics. But when "you are played" - you are forced to play a game that you have little chance of winning. You are forced to play a pointless game, taking away time and resources.

If China and the US have "played India" and forced India to play the game of building up a huge armed forces and paramilitary to take on a nation one fourth the size of India - they have successfully pushed India into a pointless game. If India had not played, Pakistan would have won. Pakistan may now be failing, but India still has not won. But neither have the US or China won.

But with India gaining clout, the US and China are seeing India differently. The US sees India as an ally to balance China. China sees India as a threat. In my view any Indian alliance with the US should hinge on stabilizing Pakistan and allowing Pakistanis to come back into the Indian fold where they belong. My hostility to the US stems from the US policy of funding and arming the Pakistani army against India. That must stop. Otherwise India is allowing itself to "be played" by the US

One question is whether Tibet is closer to the Indian fold or whether Pakistan is closer. Using forum lingo, Pakistanis show Indic traits, while Tibetans follow an Indic faith. Both are within the Indian fold in different ways. But by reclaiming Pakistan we will gain much more by way of resources to look at China and Tibet. We are going to be fairly stretched trying to free Tibet if the US and China continue to cooperate to support the Pakistani establishment against India.

Using the "with us or against us" rhetoric, a US that does not cooperate with us and help coerce Pakistan back into the Indian fold is a US that is not an ally that we need. We will have to muddle hrough and manage the Chinese and Pakistanis without he benefit of such an ally.

[shiv]

shiv saar,
you do me injustice. That was not the import of my remarks! I'm sorry if you misunderstood me.

No no it was said in jest. No offence taken at all.

[Pulikeshi]

Using the "with us or against us" rhetoric, a US that does not cooperate with us and help coerce Pakistan back into the Indian fold is a US that is not an ally that we need. We will have to muddle hrough and manage the Chinese and Pakistanis without he benefit of such an ally.

Shiv,

No disagreements with what you have said. India ought to express this clearly to the US.
Thanks for clarifying.

[Prem]

Indian motto ought to be "Are you with us or with terrorists".

[chaanakya]

.............. 3) Several things have been said about what to do regarding the Tibet question. I do not specifically recall anyone demanding the derecognition of Tibet as part of China as an action India should take. I may have missed the post - please point me to the same if you know. I do know that people have called for some tit for tat actions on the visa stapling business and I suggested several actions that will serve as irritants in addition. You may have missed them and I will not repeat unless you ask me to repeat what I said.

I am not at all sure of what derecognition of Tibet as part of China would serve. I happen to think that Chinese actions like stapled visa etc are pointless symbolism. We too can indulge in pointless symbolism if it makes us feel better but I see not near or medium term possibility of India making Tibet independent or autonomous. Nobody seems to have gone into any detail about "What next?" after derecognizing Tibet as part of China. Should we make war? Or train our resident Tibetans to start a campaign of violence in Tibet? (which China is afraid of). Should we then provoke war?

My personal feeling is that India should not get into a game at a local "Tibet level" which will not lead to any benefit. I personally feel that if we want to take symbolic action against China we should as a nation first drop the mindless fear and respect we have for China which makes us silent about the thousands of problems that China visibly has and start talking about them openly to slight and provoke China the way China seeks to provoke. In the short to medium term it could even provoke China into a border war with India as they seek to preserve their honor. ...........

I think Rajesh's contention of making HHDL as President of India is one such thread that seeks to question One China theory and seeks to reopen Tibet question.

It would serve to legitimise Indian claim , if any is made, on Tibet.


China is controlling water resources that flows to India. In the long run controlling Tibet would help secure these resources as Chinese would simply pounce on weak position of lower riparian state .
In the short term it would help contain Chinese ambition and they would have to commit more and ever increasing resources towards military purposes. And I don't think there would be war over mere declaration as even now not many countries recognise Tibet and China doesn't go to war with them.

I agree with your argument that we have to compete with China on various resources and sometimes cooperate with them where our interest coincide. But that should not lead us to be lulled into acquiescence on every point( not that India does that) Same should be with US. India does that as well , albeit less often.

If deflation hits China what happens then. Its economy would go for a toss. So China is more aggressive in competing for resources. India with its chalta hai attitude is mostly slow in reacting, forget about being proactive.

What next is Face off.

[brihaspati]

Growth - here taken only in the sense of economic productivity and consumption - is important. What is puzzling but interesting is as to which are the profiles that converge to insistence that growth should strictly be restricted to "economic" only.

First historical records for India - when were the most sustained attacks by hostile peripheral powers on the Indian subcontinent? Always, always, always after a steady period of economic "growth". In the centuries before the persian annexation of the western parts of India, prosperity reached so high that this satrapy of the Persian empire only took tonnes of gold as annual tax from here. The Greeks came smelling the scent of gold.

Same goes for post Mauryan period. Same goes for post Gupta period. Almost every estimate of bullion flow into the subcontinent lands up with net substantial inflow into India - which meant that India produced commodities for foriegn consumption that could not be matched by similar imports in commodities produced externally - India did not need to import. Which meant that the GDP must have been climbing at a fantastic rate.

Did Indian powers in the post Gupta period go out to needle and interfere in the peripheral or foreign powers on the landward side ? No...no sign at all. No invasions or political interference in Mesopotamia or Central Asia from the Indian side. So the momentum to crush India and loot its accumulated wealth starts up. First, develop a war weapon that is difficult to produces in India and prevent Indian powers from gaining this weapon productive facility - horses. Charge exorbitantly for horses that are needed to combat horses. Thus gain profits from Indians to carry on the war against Indians.

So much bullion was removed from India at this stage under the peaceful annual holiday makers from CAR or ME, who came with their holiday security for peaceful picking up of souvenirs in India - that a whole period is archaeologically barren of coins of Indian kings in the north-west. We also have explicit exhortation of "peace" and "moral" behaviour from treatises and tracts that discourage going too far away from "home", that talk of miraculous powers of their respective deities and semi-divine humans who magically change hearts of "enemies" - and comes solidly from a background of "trading/merchant" ambience.

So what do we see - when Indian have been engaged in the single-minded pursuit of growth in economic terms only, without projecting their power abroad, behaving morally in international terms - they were finally forced into war, to extract and loot what they had accumulated. Obviously a lot of Indians fell passionately in love with the "economic growth only" and it immensely benefited the foreigners.

By not seeking to impose Indian control on its periphery, India had no handle on the technologies of war being developed in that periphery - horses in that case, or prevent the rise of forces that ultimately overtook India from these very same regions.

A lot of people - out of delusion, out of fear of consequences of having to share in failure if power-projection failed, out of an exaggerated sense of morality and power being a zero-sum game, and perhaps some actually out of hostile intent - want Indians not to project power and control beyond its current borders.

Should Indians continue to be the honey-bees for the rest of the world, and especially all who are based on Eurasia? To be encouraged to singlemindedly accumulate honey so that the bears and some clever but lazy humans can come and periodically raid the hive? The bear of course simply breaks and destroys and does not even care what happens to the hive [ a bear remains a bear after all - never learns to produce food - and simply lives off the land] while the clever and lazy humans raid and go away leaving a little of the hive behind so it can grow back for a future raid. All the while the bees concentrate only, only, only on "growth" so much so that they cannot think of destroying the raiders.

That is the crux of the question. Your answers will immediately show what you want or don't want to do about Tibet. Or the current Chinese regime.

Tibet must be made independent, or an autonomous region allied to India. That may require a Constitutional amendment but can be done if it becomes necessary to do so. If India needs legitimacy to act on Tibetan soil and on behalf of the Tibetans - then India has to plan for it. It is apart of a comprehensive programme about PRC and PLA and the entire East Asia. The CPC and PLA has to be drawn out into increasing expenditure all around its territories - on both flanks along the mongolian-Turkestan sector as well as SEAsia. The ultimate target is to destroy the CPC and the PLA and give full support to all indigenous Chinese resistance movement against the mafia network of communist party bosses who are practically looting the people and it resources.

We want to see a much territorially shrunk China without its communist party and its communist army, and which follows a open multiparty democracy - and which also systematically tries ex-communists and PLA commanders for their crimes and delegetimizes all communist and PLA legacy and authority.

If Tibet cannot survive as an independent nation we should offer the Tibetans autonomy with Indian Union in all aspects except foreign affairs, defense, and currency.

We should pursue all methods, economic competition, military triggers to increase military expenditure on PLA, constant diplomatic skullduggery, and use all possible sources to cause pain and loss to both CPC and PLA. No one method should be touted as the only method to the complete abandonment of all others.

[TonyMontana]

Tibet must be made independent, or an autonomous region allied to India.

We want to see a much territorially shrunk China without its communist party and its communist army, and which follows a open multiparty democracy - and which also systematically tries ex-communists and PLA commanders for their crimes and delegetimizes all communist and PLA legacy and authority.

We should pursue all methods, economic competition, military triggers to increase military expenditure on PLA, constant diplomatic skullduggery, and use all possible sources to cause pain and loss to both CPC and PLA. No one method should be touted as the only method to the complete abandonment of all others.

Regime change. Nation building. Territorial expansion. No trick in the book spared. Spoken like a true Imperialist.

But I get what you're saying tho. There is nothing wrong with India playing the game all the other boys are playing. However, you must be aware that this is a hard road for India to follow. India is already behind the game. All the barriers to entry are already there. So India have to play double time just to catch up. Like another poster said in the economic thread, I think, maybe India should play her own game. And not try to jump on the Imperialism bandwagon.

[RajeshA]

There is nothing wrong with India playing the game all the other boys are playing. However, you must be aware that this is a hard road for India to follow. India is already behind the game. All the barriers to entry are already there. So India have to play double time just to catch up. Like another poster said in the economic thread, I think, maybe India should play her own game. And not try to jump on the Imperialism bandwagon.

Oh, but we will be playing a different game. It is called the Liberation Game!

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 28, 2010
By Clifford McCoy
US stirs South China Sea waters: Asia Times Online

China's stance on maritime issues has grown increasingly hardline in recent years. As its naval power has grown, Beijing has backed strong rhetoric with military exercises that have set neighboring powers on edge. China has assumed the right to regulate which vessels can navigate or conduct research in its exclusive economic zones (EEZ), a move which legal experts say flouts international laws governing freedom of navigation. The USS Impeccable, an ocean surveillance ship, was harassed by Chinese naval vessels in March 2009, forcing it to leave an area in China's EEZ.

China's tougher stance has become increasingly evident in the South China Sea. After several years of diplomatic dealings, including its signing of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN in 2003, China has become increasingly firm about its wide claims in the maritime area. The treaty aimed to commit all sides in disputes to peaceful resolution and the renunciation of the threat or use of force.

China's claims extend over most of the South China Sea and are at odds with the territorial claims of Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines. In addition to navigation issues, the seabed is thought to be rich in oil and gas.

Promotion of free navigation in the South China Sea also jibes with US concerns over China's rising assertion of its assumed maritime rights and improved naval capabilities. Since the 1990's, China has carried out a program of military modernization and weapons acquisition that has raised concerns in Washington. In recent years, China has developed and acquired new hardware, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), submarines and surface warships. In addition, it has taken steps to overhaul its naval doctrine and improve its training, logistics and military exercises.

[TonyMontana]

Oh, but we will be playing a different game. It is called the Liberation Game!

The PLA got liberation in their name too. How much liberating are they doing? You can call it what ever you want.

[brihaspati]

Tibet must be made independent, or an autonomous region allied to India.

We want to see a much territorially shrunk China without its communist party and its communist army, and which follows a open multiparty democracy - and which also systematically tries ex-communists and PLA commanders for their crimes and delegetimizes all communist and PLA legacy and authority.

We should pursue all methods, economic competition, military triggers to increase military expenditure on PLA, constant diplomatic skullduggery, and use all possible sources to cause pain and loss to both CPC and PLA. No one method should be touted as the only method to the complete abandonment of all others.

Regime change. Nation building. Territorial expansion. No trick in the book spared. Spoken like a true Imperialist.

But I get what you're saying tho. There is nothing wrong with India playing the game all the other boys are playing. However, you must be aware that this is a hard road for India to follow. India is already behind the game. All the barriers to entry are already there. So India have to play double time just to catch up. Like another poster said in the economic thread, I think, maybe India should play her own game. And not try to jump on the Imperialism bandwagon.

Sure, if you want to paint India's legitimate strategy based on its repeated prior experiences as the honey-bee of Eurasia, as "imperialism" - then you need to ignore the rest of my post and simply quote the last part. As I said many people want India to concentrate on "pure economic growth" and not pay attention to the military strength and lack of any morality whatsoever in its neighbours - so that one day again the Indian honeybees can be looted again.

No successful imperialists were ever apparently totally ahead of what they conquered. Surely you remember that the Chinese were far ahead of the Mongols in economy, technology, knowledge, GDP yet the Chinese fell like a house of cards before the Mongols.

Further, I must remind you before dubbing me an "imperialist" - that I have not called for the long standing cultural heritage and identity of the Chinese people to be destroyed unlike China or other imperialists who have the declared intention of destroying the cultural basis of Indian society which they dub as "superstitious, feudal belief system". No difference in language here between Chinese communists and the two proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic.

Actually, I could counterpoise that anyone who ignores the historical experience of India and hence its reason to cleanup its neighbourhood - ignores it after repeated reference to the power projection of India as necessary to safeguard its own culture and economy as a reaction to whatever others have done to India - and wants us insistently not to do exactly the thing that will spoil anti-India imperialists dreams - is perhaps - knowingly or unknowingly acting as those anti-India imperialists' agent.

Any source that persists on drumming about how and why India should only focus on "economic growth" and not look at the preparations and steps being taken to eventually destroy India not only politically but also with its cultural base - is suspect.

I hope that you cease calling individual posters as "imperialists" - as I may then be forced to quote Chines sources as well as their lackeys outside of China that will show a remarkable convergence between "India sympathizers" and "China shining" about the essential Chinese target about India - as an "imperialist" target way beyond what I may even speak about against CPC and PLA.

[TonyMontana]

Sure, if you want to paint India's legitimate strategy based on its repeated prior experiences as the honey-bee of Eurasia, as "imperialism" - then you need to ignore the rest of my post and simply quote the last part. As I said many people want India to concentrate on "pure economic growth" and not pay attention to the military strength and lack of any morality whatsoever in its neighbours - so that one day again the Indian honeybees can be looted again.

I'm not calling it Imperialism. I was hinting that it had imperialistic undertones and that could possibily be seen or "propagandaed" as Imperialism. And I'm not suggesting India should only focus on economic growth. I'm saying India should focus on economic growth FOR NOW. I don't think India is ready economic wise to jump in the mud with the other boys.

No successful imperialists were ever apparently totally ahead of what they conquered. Surely you remember that the Chinese were far ahead of the Mongols in economy, technology, knowledge, GDP yet the Chinese fell like a house of cards before the Mongols.

The Chinese fell like a house of card because it was a disunified period in China. We were busy fighting ourselves. The wall worked just fine till some Chinese opened the gates. But I agree, power rises and wanes. So timing is key.

Further, I must remind you before dubbing me an "imperialist" - that I have not called for the long standing cultural heritage and identity of the Chinese people to be destroyed unlike China or other imperialists who have the declared intention of destroying the cultural basis of Indian society which they dub as "superstitious, feudal belief system". No difference in language here between Chinese communists and the two proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic.

Again. I didn't call you an Imperialist. I thought the would convey "jest". But alas. I apologise if you've taken any offence. As to the second part. It's good to know that India would be a beneficient overlord, where the cultures of his subjects will be repected.

Any source that persists on drumming about how and why India should only focus on "economic growth" and not look at the preparations and steps being taken to eventually destroy India not only politically but also with its cultural base - is suspect.

Any source that persists on drumming about how and why India should start a fight with the Chinese now and that India should be more agressive and not look at the disadvantages India would have in such a fight - is naive.

[brihaspati]

TonyMontana wrote
I'm not calling it Imperialism. I was hinting that it had imperialistic undertones and that could possibily be seen or "propagandaed" as Imperialism. And I'm not suggesting India should only focus on economic growth. I'm saying India should focus on economic growth FOR NOW. I don't think India is ready economic wise to jump in the mud with the other boys.

Well this is what you actually wrote:

Regime change. Nation building. Territorial expansion. No trick in the book spared. Spoken like a true Imperialist.

Who spoke like a true "imperialist" if you did not mean me - incidentally?

The Chinese fell like a house of card because it was a disunified period in China. We were busy fighting ourselves. The wall worked just fine till some Chinese opened the gates. But I agree, power rises and wanes. So timing is key.

Not all of the defeat at Mongol hands was due to "some Chinese opening the gates" - the major Mongol army bypassed the walled sections along some river valleys. Opening of gates was more famous with later dynasties. Moreover the main point was not gates, not disunity, but whether economic growth is a guarantee of safety.

Again. I didn't call you an Imperialist. I thought the would convey "jest". But alas. I apologise if you've taken any offence. As to the second part. It's good to know that India would be a beneficient overlord, where the cultures of his subjects will be repected.

Well actually, as my quote about "spoken like a true imperialist" shows you did! Further nowhere in my post is there any reference to India becoming an overlord of the Chinese - I have clearly and specifically mentioned the target being only the communist party and the communist army. I have also made this point clear with you before - that India has no quarrel with the common Chinese. India does not need to annex China and become its overlord - that sort of thinking probably comes more naturally to mindsets used to serving "emperors" historically - be it the son of heaven or son of Marxism.

Any source that persists on drumming about how and why India should start a fight with the Chinese now and that India should be more agressive and not look at the disadvantages India would have in such a fight - is naive.

Sure - thanks for the concern. Overdrumming of supposed disadvantages also becomes suspect.

[TonyMontana]

I have clearly and specifically mentioned the target being only the communist party and the communist army. I have also made this point clear with you before - that India has no quarrel with the common Chinese. India does not need to annex China and become its overlord - that sort of thinking probably comes more naturally to mindsets used to serving "emperors" historically - be it the son of heaven or son of Marxism.

If only one could seperate the CCP with the Chinese people so easily. Iraq is the perfect example. Sure the evil regime is got rid off. But the suffering of the people increased. With no end in sight. It is in my opinion that the same thing will happen in China. A lot of blood and money will be wasted, and in about 30 years the same kind of people will be back on top again. Sad, yes. But it's the world we live it. So you can't seperate the targeting of the CCP with the targetting of the Chinese people that easily.

As to being an overlord, I was refering to Tibet.

[RajeshA]

The USA-PRC-TSP & India Dynamic

But with India gaining clout, the US and China are seeing India differently. The US sees India as an ally to balance China. China sees India as a threat. In my view any Indian alliance with the US should hinge on stabilizing Pakistan and allowing Pakistanis to come back into the Indian fold where they belong. My hostility to the US stems from the US policy of funding and arming the Pakistani army against India. That must stop. Otherwise India is allowing itself to "be played" by the US.

Between India and Pakistan, Pakistan is more important to both USA and PRC. The one who controls Pakistan controls the game.

Now what is the game? The game is, I think, the ability to control India and Central Asia, through which PRC and Russia can be influenced, if the need arises.

If USA controls Pakistan:

1. During Cold War, USA controls the Jihadis through TSPA, and hence controls Russia
2. During Cold War, USA controls TSPA, and hence controls an ally of Russia, India
3. Post Cold War, USA controls the Jihadis through TSPA, and hence controls both Russia (through Chechen rebels) and China (through Uyghur rebels)
4. Post Cold War, USA controls the Jihadis through TSPA, and hence keeps a lid on Global Jihad.

If China controls Pakistan

1. During and Post Cold War, PRC controls TSPA, and hence controls (boxes in) India
2. Post Cold War, PRC controls TSPA, and hence reasserts its own control over the situation in Xinjiang.
3. Post Cold War, PRC controls TSPA, and hence squeezes the juice out of America in Afghanistan, making it a spent force.
4. Post Cold War, PRC controls TSPA, and hence has the services of TSPA to control Global Jihad at its beckoning.

So a joint control over Pakistan by USA and PRC has meant that USA can keep a lid on Global Jihad, and PRC can keep a lid on India and squeeze USA dry. PRC has encouraged Pakistan to help USA to fight Global Jihad, because should USA not get any help form Pakistan, USA would find other ways to fight Global Jihad and destroy Pakistan while doing it. That way China loses - no lid on India, no squeeze on USA.

Joint Management of Pakistan, has also meant that USA too has had to support the goals of China to some extent. That includes letting PRC use TSP to keep a lid on India, which TSP wants anyway. But because of PRC's patronage, Pakistan cannot be talked out by India to mend its ways.

USA, IMHO, has lost the major part of its interest in using Pakistan to keep India in line, which was a Cold-War strategy. Until India became a US ally, USA was okay with Pakistan continuing its and PRC's cause to destabilize India. After India became an ally, USA has often stated publicly that it wants Pakistan and India to patch up, and Pakistan should stop seeing India as an enemy, trying to talk TSPA Jernails out of doing PRC's bidding (which of course they thoroughly enjoy) but to little avail. In the mean time it has pursued with its own goal of containing Global Jihad, and tried to keep Pakistanis in good humor by giving it military presents, which can of course be used against India, USA's 'secret' ally. MMS has given all he possibly could to support USA's strategy of weaning away Pakistan from enmity against India, as it is first and foremost in our interest.

So basically PRC has checkmated both USA and India in Pakistan. USA cannot afford to break off with Pakistani Army chiefly due to Global War on Terror considerations and is being bled to pennilessness in Afghanistan, and India is checkmated by Chinese nukes in Pakistani possession, and considerations for India's 'secret' ally USA and is forced to live in a box.

Now however as USA and PRC are slowly moving much more visibly into their roles as 'strategic competitors', or even 'economic friends but strategic enemies' the US and PRC game in Pakistan has changed. For quite some time, it has become apparent to USA that it is being bled in Afghanistan at the instance of PRC. The Pakistanis sold off the Taliban on September 13, 2001. All this effort to get the Taliban back in the saddle in Kabul, is not, in my view, just a plan hatched in Quetta, or even Rawalpindi. I think it goes much further East. PRC is funding the Pakistanis to bleed the Americans in Afghanistan. If only TSPA was involved they would not have played such a dangerous game of duplicity. The argument that Pakistan is paranoid about India's presence in Afghanistan is specious. India's role in Afghanistan has been benign and defensive. Simply due to geographical proximity and dependence of the Afghans on Pakistan would have been sufficient to get Afghanistani compliance and cooperation. India could never have built up a big enough force in Afghanistan to credibly challenge Pakistan. As such sending out Afghan Mujahideen to take out
Americans even though Pakistan is dependent on American money can only mean PRC has been able to convince the Pakistanis to take the plunge, and that PRC would be there to support Pakistan, if the Americans leave, because that is what will happen once Americans get fed up in Afghanistan. American funds for Pakistan would also dry up pretty quickly. So it was a big gamble to make.

So what did the Chinese promise the Pakistanis for forsaking America? Probably something Americans could not have promised the Pakistanis - Kashmir, may be? Is that the reason, PoK is being overrun by PLA forces, and Kashmir is up in flames? How far are PRC and Pakistan in snatching Kashmir away from India?

Now Americans simply want to get out of Afghanistan - a big big mistake on the part of Americans, as they let themselves be played. When the PRC strategy really solidified into this, one can only speculate! Once the Americans leave, PRC would be the sole possessor of Pakistan, which means unlimited control of Jihadis with plausible deniability, a firm lid on India, a terribly fractured India with Kashmir on the boil, and no US access to China's underbelly - Xinjiang. By bringing in Iran into the Chinese orbit, China wants to seal off Central Asia to USA and India.

So he who controls Potohar Plateau (Pakjab) controls the destiny of Asia.

Basically USA is going to lose all control over TSPA and ability to control the Global Jihadis to PRC. That is bad news for USA, especially as it settles in into 'secret' Cold War with PRC, secret because at the economic level, USA and China will continue to enjoy a vigorous relationship.

PRC control over Pakistan runs through Gilgit-Baltistan. Without Gilgit-Baltistan firmly in Chinese or Pakistani hands, the land and air route between China and Pakistan gets broken, and that would be end of any wet dreams of PRC to control Global Jihad and through it the West, as well as to box in India into vegetative power state, or as MMS said, “to keep India in a low-level equilibrium.”.

In fact, USA should just say, that if they can't have their way, neither are they going to allow PRC to enjoy GUBOing Pakistan, so they go ahead and bomb it to crap, or allow it to fall apart. Problem is that even then USA remains apprehensive, because the Global Jihadis could take over in the chaos, and get a more strengthened platform to stage attacks at USA, especially with so much nuclear material in Pakistani hands. So Americans are not even being allowed to walk away from TSPA. Even after leaving Afghanistan all bled dry, America would have to still donate more blood to TSPA to keep it alive. Of course, here USA again gets cooperation from PRC.

We have to recognize the three phases of American-Chinese joint management of Pakistan.

1. US-USSR Cold-War: (1963 - 1991) America and China use Pakistan to keep Russia and India in check.
2. Sino-US bonhomie: (1991 - 2010) America uses Pakistan against Al Qaeda and PRC uses Pakistan against India.
3. Sino-US Cold-War: (2011 - ***) America and China stabilize Pakistan to not allow it to fall prey to Al Qaeda or India. If TSPA's hold stabilizes, America may not support Pakistan too much.

So the only certainty is that TSPA will become a branch of PLA.

So what are India's options:

1. Make TSPA lose its primacy and dominance in Pakistan.
2. Break up Pakistan, so TSPA controls only Pakjab and PRC can make use of TSPA against India only in a limited way.
3. Jihadize Pakistan to an extent that nobody can control the Jihadis there, neither USA, nor PRC, nor India, and all parties get the blow-back including PRC.
4. Capture PoK and break PRC's hold over TSPA by blocking direct land and air routes between PRC and Pakistan.

The feasibility of each option would be:

1. India and USA have been trying this for some time, without success. The democratic dispensations are never strong enough to resist pressure from the Army, and Army retains full control over defense and foreign policy.
2. This is a suboptimal solution, as PRC still has some influence in Pakjab, and any effort by USA to undertake something so sinister, would mean TSPA jumps into PRC's lap right away and danger of Global Jihad against the West increases, and against India as well.
3. India may like this solution, but USA would hate it.
4. This is something both India and USA could opt for, but even here USA would have to come out in the open, perhaps against Pakistan wishes. But there are a lot of possibilities hidden here.

With the secret 'Cold War' between USA and China already having started, it is important for USA that Pakistan does not fall completely into the lap of PRC. Any joint management of Pakistan by USA and PRC from now on is a deal of decreasing dividends for USA. So USA too needs to do something, and do something soon enough.

If USA wants to avail of all the goodies Pakistani Army can provide to it, then it needs to cut off PRC from Pakistan, and if India wants to have a chance in a million to win over Pakistan, India too would need to cut off PRC from Pakistan.

Added Later: the Heading!

[shiv]

I have several problems with what you have said:

After India became an ally, USA has often stated publicly that it wants Pakistan and India to patch up, and Pakistan should stop seeing India as an enemy, trying to talk TSPA Jernails out of doing PRC's bidding (which of course they thoroughly enjoy) but to little avail. In the mean time it has pursued with its own goal of containing Global Jihad, and tried to keep Pakistanis in good humor by giving it military presents, which can of course be used against India, USA's 'secret' ally. MMS has given all he possibly could to support USA's strategy of weaning away Pakistan from enmity against India, as it is first and foremost in our interest.

The US has never declared India and ally. When you arm a nation well - it stays well armed for a decade or more because the weapons don't evaporate. Pakistan will be well armed against India until at east 2025. The US is NOT_India's_ally.

See this post I made in the Pakistan thread (images of the Pakistan army)
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 90#p948490

So basically PRC has checkmated both USA and India in Pakistan. USA cannot afford to break off with Pakistani Army chiefly due to Global War on Terror considerations and is being bled to pennilessness in Afghanistan, and India is checkmated by Chinese nukes in Pakistani possession, and considerations for India's 'secret' ally USA and is forced to live in a box.

If China has screwed the US and India, what use is the US to India now that Pakistan will remain well armed against India for over a decade? The US has to take some concrete measures to show that it means goodwill for India. If India has to help Pakistan the Pakistani army must be disempowered. That much we know well on here. If the US does nothing in that direction then everything else it does "for India" is all fluff.

We have to recognize the three phases of American-Chinese joint management of Pakistan.

1. Sino-US bonhomie: (1991 - 2010) America uses Pakistan against Al Qaeda and PRC uses Pakistan against India.
2. Sino-US Cold-War: (2011 - ***) America and China stabilize Pakistan to not allow it to fall prey to Al Qaeda or India. If TSPA's hold stabilizes, America may not support Pakistan too much.

How did you conclude that Sino-US bonhomie has lasted from 1991 to 2010. Sino US bonhomie started under Nixon in the early 1970s. How can anyone say it has ended this year. We nay have to wait a decade to prove or disprove this. How can you predict a "Sino-US cold war" from 2011?

[shiv]

We should pursue all methods, economic competition, military triggers to increase military expenditure on PLA, constant diplomatic skullduggery, and use all possible sources to cause pain and loss to both CPC and PLA. No one method should be touted as the only method to the complete abandonment of all others.

I have no disagreement with this as a "broad plan of action". But your post gives me the opportunity to say something that I was going to post anyway. Just using it as a prop to say it.

It is the specifics that need attention, particularly the military specifics and the economic fallout of maintaining a funding a military of adequate size to achieve the military aspects of the broad aim. Diplomatic skulduggery is something India could do (but has never done) with little more than mental effort, and soft power is all that we have ever used. Economic competition could be pursued with more vigor than the lazy rate of competition that exists now.

It is only the military plan that needs heavy and long term investment.

The following pages show an approximate comparison between the military sizes of India, Pakistan and China
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country- ... y_id=India
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country- ... d=Pakistan
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country- ... y_id=China

As I have stated time and again, an offensive military force that intends to capture and occupy territory has to be much larger than a defensive force. A defensive force by nature is not "all defence" as some people tend to believe. It has offensive elements too and can attack and hold. But the numbers required for a massive attack and hold and the equipment required for logistics (food and weapons) for the attacking forces is vastly different.

By simply arming Pakistan, at least half the Indian armed forces are held down in defensive formations against Pakistan. Both the US (our fork tongued non ally) and China (a declared adversary) have armed the Pakistani army and have effectively checkmated India in many ways.

With only half of Indian armed strength available against China our options for offensive occupation in Tibet are not limited. They are laughable. Making Pakistan an ally by economically integrating Pakistan with India as has been the case through history until 63 years ago is an essential fist step in putting India in the right place.

The US is the prime sponsor of quality of the Pakistan army and that quality has been irreversibly increased up to 2020 at least. So what military options do we have in Tibet?

[Manishw]

Actually, I could counterpoise that anyone who ignores the historical experience of India and hence its reason to cleanup its neighbourhood - ignores it after repeated reference to the power projection of India as necessary to safeguard its own culture and economy as a reaction to whatever others have done to India - and wants us insistently not to do exactly the thing that will spoil anti-India imperialists dreams - is perhaps - knowingly or unknowingly acting as those anti-India imperialists' agent.

Any source that persists on drumming about how and why India should only focus on "economic growth" and not look at the preparations and steps being taken to eventually destroy India not only politically but also with its cultural base - is suspect.

+1 B Ji, many of these suspect sources would just like us to play 'roll over and die' while justifying their own hostilities in erudite or less erudite ways.Only the wording's change, Intentions do not.

[TonyMontana]

+1 B Ji, many of these suspect sources would just like us to play 'roll over and die' while justifying their own hostilities in erudite or less erudite ways.Only the wording's change, Intentions do not.

Why do you have to take it to the extreme every time? Is the world really a zero-sum game to you? There a long way between competition and "roll over and die".

[Manishw]

Why do you have to take it to the extreme every time?

As I see it, Taking it to extremes is what powers that are hostile to India do.Our history bears ample testimony to this fact.Now I am not suggesting that PRC and its lackeys are the only hostile powers.

Is the world really a zero-sum game to you? There a long way between competition and "roll over and die".

No, I envision a world which is Dharmic but also understand that it is impracticable to talk of these things when 'might is right' type of ideology predominates.
I believe we have to first beat them at their own game.This dharmic stuff is pretty misunderstood, look what happened to 'tibetans'

[TonyMontana]

I believe we have to first beat them at their own game.This dharmic stuff is pretty misunderstood, look what happened to 'tibetans'

Can you beat them at their own game without becoming them? Or do you want to become them?

The last part is the trillion dollar question.

[Manishw]

Can you beat them at their own game without becoming them?

Alas that is the only choice they leave us with.This step has to be taken since the threat to our nation is existential.
This is the extremist action's of our enemies that we have to now react.

[KLNMurthy]

I believe we have to first beat them at their own game.This dharmic stuff is pretty misunderstood, look what happened to 'tibetans'

Can you beat them at their own game without becoming them? Or do you want to become them?

The last part is the trillion dollar question.

Tony Montana, I have been reading your posts for quite some time and you have said nothing new beyond your patronizing and repetitious appeals for India to be "better than that." Evidently you don't realize that this is a forum that is dedicated to the defense of India, through military and any other available means.

Mods, isn't there an expectation that a poster should contribute some new ideas once in a while?

[Hari Seldon]

Am reminded of an old sunny deol dialogue only:

Jaanwar ko maareny ke liye, kabhi kabhi, jaanwar banna padta hai

[Philip]

In managing the Chinese threat,we must be prepared,as the "Scouts" motto says.However,one must not forget what happened ecades ago to two rich nations.Iran and Iraq.The US/West supported Iraq and saddam to the hilt,feeding him with WMD tech and weapons,encouraged him to wage war with the Khomeini regime.The Iran-Iraq war devastated both economies and took the heat off any threat to Israel.It was only when Saddam ,sabre-rattling against Israel and developing the "super-gun" with Canadian scientist/inventor Bull,rebelled against orders from Uncle Sam,invaded Kuwait on the assumption given to him by the then US ambassador that the US would turn a blind eye,that the US under Bush Sr. orchgestrated an international force to evict him in GW1 and his son Dubya used 9/11 as an excuse to invade again and saw him hanged in GW2.

India therefore cannot become a "warring" nation aga8inst China.China must se eour massive military build-up,our dour intent to protct our national boundaries and our willingness to use the two "T" cards,Tibet and Taiwan if it tries to wage war against India also using its catspaw Pak.The fact that waging war with India will cause huge damage to Chinese interests should be sufficiently damaging to persuade the Chinese that in the long run it would be better (paraphrasing JFK's words about LBJ) to have India "inside the Asian tent pissing out ,than outside pissing in".If India and China enter into a costly spat,the ultimate winer will be the US,as it will see the two ASian giants beggar themselves and destroy their infrastructure ,setting both back a couple of decades just as it did Iraq and Iran.

Managing China is a very skillful task that should employ the threat of massive military counterforce,coupled with intelligent innovative diplomacy,that establishes alliances and bases with Chinese threatened nations like Vietnam,Taiwan,ASEAN,SoKo,Japan,etc.,but never getting into any militayr arrangement with the US,whcih will prove to be a fatal one,ask Saddam,the Shah,Noriega and many others.

[Venkarl]

apologies for the OT

Tony Montana,

Do you know what socom:confrontation is? are you on that network?

Thanks

[Manishw]

Can you beat them at their own game without becoming them? Or do you want to become them?

Tony beating them at their game is something we have to do since we cannot become this as Sanku Ji wrote:

Oh its not a matter of who started it first, CPC is evil, pure and simple, with rampant genocidal tendencies, a partial list is

1) Great leap forward
2) Genocide in Tibet
3) Supporting Genocidal and terrorist govts in Darfur, Pakistan and North Korea.

It is also a megalomaniac power which bristles at the thought of any head which is not bowed in dust before it, examples are

1) Attacking India in 62 (although it only bowed Nehru's head, the Indian head remained unbowed after cutting of 10 chinese heads for every head we lost)
2) Attacking Vietnam (where again it got a solid jhappad)

So folks lets not fall for == nonsense here. It seems the drones have figured out that == is our chink in the armor, consider how successfully that nonsense has been tried on India and Hindu's before.

and in subsequent post I wrote this:

Let me repeat my illogical stuff again.

At least we agree on one point that your stuff is illogical.

1) A prosperous India will have enough leverage in terms of trade to entice the Chinese to settle the border disputes in India's favor.

There will be no prosperous India without a strong military.Our influence both in the far and near abroad will be finished and internal problems will come to the fore of course abetted by PRC.Is it too difficult to understand?

2) Only a prosperous India can effective counter China, if trade(read money) is not enough to settle your problems.

We are prosperous enough to take on PRC today what seems to be lacking is political will even there I am not sure.

3) By focusing on "getting the chinese back" today, you slows the growth of Indian economy with non-productive spending, slowing India from gaining prosperity.

Our defence budget (IMO) should be 1.5 times more than what it is today.our economy can grow faster even with this budget if we reduce inefficiencies/corruption in our system.Also the money spent on defence can contribute to our GDP growth rate.

Look, what the CCP really want is to drag India into an arms race, and try to out spend you. China is not dumb enough to fulfill Indian Jingoe's dream by starting a hot war.

Thank the CCP for that otherwise there is a widely held view that if not for it the politicos in our countries would be sitting on their backsides and doing nothing.

[RajeshA]

The USA-PRC-TSP & India Dynamic

I have several problems with what you have said:

After India became an ally, USA has often stated publicly that it wants Pakistan and India to patch up, and Pakistan should stop seeing India as an enemy, trying to talk TSPA Jernails out of doing PRC's bidding (which of course they thoroughly enjoy) but to little avail. In the mean time it has pursued with its own goal of containing Global Jihad, and tried to keep Pakistanis in good humor by giving it military presents, which can of course be used against India, USA's 'secret' ally. MMS has given all he possibly could to support USA's strategy of weaning away Pakistan from enmity against India, as it is first and foremost in our interest.

The US has never declared India and ally. When you arm a nation well - it stays well armed for a decade or more because the weapons don't evaporate. Pakistan will be well armed against India until at east 2025. The US is NOT_India's_ally.

See this post I made in the Pakistan thread (images of the Pakistan army)
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 90#p948490

I did say 'secret' ally, so one doesn't go around making announcements. India prides on being a country with an independent foreign policy, and declarations announcing India's alliance with USA were not desired. I think, on July 18, 2005, India and USA reached a gentleman's agreement on an alliance, when the nuclear deal was announced.

When I say, 'secret' alliance, it means:

• An acknowledgement that USA does not consider India an hostile country
• An acknowledgement that India does not consider USA an hostile country
• A broad understanding on geopolitical situation of the world
• A broad understanding on strategic cooperation
• An understanding between the Leaderships of the two countries - GWB and MMS.
• Of course, national interests of each nation have precedence despite an 'alliance', and as such there are several fields of disagreement.

So, IMHO we are already in an alliance with the USA, even though the official status is different. Something similar to how we had an alliance with Soviet Union, even as we were Non-Aligned.

Your objections to the term 'alliance' flow from an assessment of benefits and disadvantages to India and Indo-US history. By 'alliance', I mean an understanding amongst the leadership on a range of strategic issues. One saw signs of this 'alliance' at work during the Nuclear Deal, through Indian silence on all issues around US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, through India's deference to USA on the question of Pakistan, through Indo-US cooperation in David Headley interrogation, through India's naval exercises in the Indian Ocean, etc.

At least till the end of the Bush Administration, this alliance was in effect. Till now during Obama's Administration this alliance has been going on the momentum of previous understandings, but there was no real new impetus. This may change again after Obama's visit to India in November.

Now I am not dwelling on the question of whether this 'secret' alliance has been in India's national interests. But an acknowledgement that there is one such understanding between the leaderships of USA and India, brings us a lot further in correctly analyzing the present situation.

So basically PRC has checkmated both USA and India in Pakistan. USA cannot afford to break off with Pakistani Army chiefly due to Global War on Terror considerations and is being bled to pennilessness in Afghanistan, and India is checkmated by Chinese nukes in Pakistani possession, and considerations for India's 'secret' ally USA and is forced to live in a box.

If China has screwed the US and India, what use is the US to India now that Pakistan will remain well armed against India for over a decade? The US has to take some concrete measures to show that it means goodwill for India. If India has to help Pakistan the Pakistani army must be disempowered. That much we know well on here. If the US does nothing in that direction then everything else it does "for India" is all fluff.

As Obama Administration's interests in India have remained limited, one could question even the existence of such an 'alliance' secret or otherwise between the two leaderships. But assuming the momentum is still there, the goodwill may be there, but as explained earlier American options may be limited as well. That is why Blackwill has been doing the rounds in India telling India to broaden America's options, and goodwill depends on the availability of such.

There has been many utterances from America saying, that Pakistan is the only game in town.

We have reached a point, where America may be willing to make big changes in its posture in South Asia. It knows that its current position of occupation in Afghanistan, war with Taliban and support for Pakistan in its current form is in the long term untenable.

If a Indo-US strategy to change the dynamics of South Asia have to bear fruition, India too would have to make certain contributions, and it is unclear whether India is willing to make the like. USA is open to ideas right now, and wants India to propose such and then commit to her part, which may be a territory Indian Leadership has not traveled since 1971.

Let's say if USA tells India, let's cut off PRC's access to Pakistan in PoK, and India has to do uvw for that and America does xyz, would India agree. Let's say USA tells India, that India invades Pakistan and secures a land corridor to Afghanistan, putting Indian troops in that region all the way up to Khyber Pass, even as USA dismembers Pakistan in other ways, would India agree to it.

So as long as India does not come up with a vision for South Asia which India is willing to enforce with military commitments, USA feels no need to give up its current policy.

USA has tried the strategy of weaning away Pakistan from its current anti-Indian stance to a certain détente with India, telling the Pakis, that India is not its enemy, and MMS has also supported this push, as it is the most cost-effective strategy with less controversial potential than the various other hard options on the table, but this strategy seems to have failed. It has failed not simply because Pakistanis are fanatic about India but because Pakistanis have the assurance of another lifeline willing to support Pakistan's crusade against India - China.

In another era, USA could have dictated to Pakistan, that they put up with India and resolve its differences with us on such and such basis, but that era is over. Now USA cannot even see to it, that Pakistan helps USA in its GWOT. PRC feels today it is strong enough to stake its claims on its Asian interests, without the danger of any reprisal, and so it is now moving in into Pakistan for the kill - to neutralize any flexibility India and USA had in Pakistan.

When we ask what use is USA to India, we also need to ask what use is the stance of the current Indian Leadership to India.

Indian Leadership's thinking is deeply entrenched in the legitimacy accorded to it by the Indian Independence Act 1947. Indian Leadership feels secure within the confines of that act, and feels that once it leaves the womb of that act, and ventures into the world outside, where Indian soldiers start invading neighboring territories, India itself violates the sanctity afforded to it by the Act and then it becomes free for all - then India loses even the right to keep the areas that fall within the boundaries of Republic of India. To some extent this is correct, because then India does venture into an area, where the legitimacy over the land within the national boundaries of a country is subject solely to the country's ability to enforce its control over them, and cannot be derived from old legal frameworks. This is understandable.

What India however needs to learn is that the old legal framework is not sufficient to thwart external pressures on the territorial integrity of India, nor prevent a serious degradation in India's strategic environment.

Basically that is the real question that the Indian Leadership faces - the illusion of security of the known or molding the unknown for security.

Now the question arises, why should India let herself be pushed into stormy waters by USA, while USA sits on the sidelines and enjoys the show. It is in fact a good thing that India is being so cautious. It means the other countries have a hard time playing India. The solution is of course to not go it alone. India has to negotiate with USA what kind of burden it is willing to carry as well - what part is USA willing to play in the game, what is it going to invest? It is okay for India to demand that USA carries a major portion of the burden of restructuring South and Central Asia and IOR to India's and US's advantage, but India too would have to contribute.

That is where we are stuck right now! India has a right to treat USA with suspicion and to constantly verify its commitment, but India is still obliged to come up with an alternative vision for Asia, in which India becomes the predominant nation in Asia, or at least big enough to contain China and go for a Duopoly in Asia.

We have to recognize the three phases of American-Chinese joint management of Pakistan.

1. US-USSR Cold-War: (1963 - 1991) America and China use Pakistan to keep Russia and India in check.
2. Sino-US bonhomie: (1991 - 2010) America uses Pakistan against Al Qaeda and PRC uses Pakistan against India.
3. Sino-US Cold-War: (2011 - ***) America and China stabilize Pakistan to not allow it to fall prey to Al Qaeda or India. If TSPA's hold stabilizes, America may not support Pakistan too much.

How did you conclude that Sino-US bonhomie has lasted from 1991 to 2010. Sino US bonhomie started under Nixon in the early 1970s. How can anyone say it has ended this year. We nay have to wait a decade to prove or disprove this. How can you predict a "Sino-US cold war" from 2011?

Of course Sino-US bonhomie started in early 1970s, with Henry Kissinger's visit to PRC in July 1971 to be precise, but the predominant dynamic in the earlier years was the US-USSR Cold War, and USA saw PRC from that prism.

With a down-sizing of US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, USA would be somewhat freer to concentrate on bigger things of geopolitics. Judging from all that the US has been up to in South China Sea and judging from the drying up of its options in Pakistan to secure its interests, IMHO the relations between USA and PRC are headed for cooler times. But again, it is the future, and one can only make predictions on the basis of some geo-political tea leaves. Nobody can really tell the future, it is simply a haphazard guess.

I think before we can develop solutions to the problems, we need to understand the current dynamics in the region, without straying off too much in ideological stances or in historical justifications of such stances. Only if the picture is clear, can one proceed to gaming India's options.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 28, 2010
TNN
India, Japan crank up defence ties: TOI

India and Japan continue to expand their military ties across the entire spectrum, with their first-ever army-to-army staff talks beginning here on Tuesday and IAF chief Air Chief Marshal P V Naik headed for Tokyo ahead of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit there next month.

ACM Naik, who is also the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, will be leaving for Japan on Tuesday to further boost the bilateral defence relationship, which now ranges from joint combat exercises and coordinated anti-piracy patrols to counter-terrorism and service-to-service exchanges.

The four-day army-to-army level talks, with the Japanese side being led by its director-general (policy and programmes) Major-General Koichiro Bansho, in turn, will also discuss regional security issues and chalk out the coming calender of events between the two forces.

Both India and Japan, of course, continue to warily watch their large neighbour China undertake rapid modernisation of its 2.25-million armed forces.

Even as India and China jostle for the same strategic space in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), Japan too is getting worried about Chinese Navy's increasing forays near its territorial waters. In fact, their relations have taken a hit in recent days with Japan detaining a Chinese fishing boat captain near mutually-disputed islands.

India and Japan, on their part, have put in place a new "action plan to advance security cooperation'', maritime security dialogue and defence policy dialogue.

The nine-point action plan talks about strategic and defence cooperation as well as coordination in tackling terrorism, piracy and proliferation, and is meant to reinforce the strategic focus in the "global partnership'' between India and Japan.

Perhaps the outlines of a security architecture meant for containment of China taking shape.

[RajeshA]

China's currency manipulation

Published on Sep 12, 2010
By Paul Krugman
China, Japan, America: New York Times

If discussion of Chinese currency policy seems confusing, it’s only because many people don’t want to face up to the stark, simple reality — namely, that China is deliberately keeping its currency artificially weak.

The consequences of this policy are also stark and simple: in effect, China is taxing imports while subsidizing exports, feeding a huge trade surplus. You may see claims that China’s trade surplus has nothing to do with its currency policy; if so, that would be a first in world economic history. An undervalued currency always promotes trade surpluses, and China is no different.

And in a depressed world economy, any country running an artificial trade surplus is depriving other nations of much-needed sales and jobs. Again, anyone who asserts otherwise is claiming that China is somehow exempt from the economic logic that has always applied to everyone else.

Clearly, nothing will happen until or unless the United States shows that it’s willing to do what it normally does when another country subsidizes its exports: impose a temporary tariff that offsets the subsidy. So why has such action never been on the table?

One answer, as I’ve already suggested, is fear of what would happen if the Chinese stopped buying American bonds. But this fear is completely misplaced: in a world awash with excess savings, we don’t need China’s money — especially because the Federal Reserve could and should buy up any bonds the Chinese sell.

It’s true that the dollar would fall if China decided to dump some American holdings. But this would actually help the U.S. economy, making our exports more competitive. Ask the Japanese, who want China to stop buying their bonds because those purchases are driving up the yen.

Published on Sep 16, 2010
By William Ide
US Lawmakers Call for Tougher Action on Chinese Currency: Voice of America

"The time for action has long since come," said Christopher Dodd. "In fact, it is long overdue. For three decades, I've served on this committee and I've listened to every administration - Democrats and Republicans from Ronald Reagan to the current administration, producing the same results. China does basically whatever it wants, while we grow weaker and they go stronger."

Published on Sep 23, 2010
By Howard Schneider
House bill backs Obama's play on China's currency: Washington Post

The House Ways and Means Committee plans to vote Friday on a bill that would expand the Commerce Department's power to impose duties on Chinese imports in response to that country's currency being undervalued on world markets.

High unemployment and the sluggish economy are central issues in the elections, and the steady flow of Chinese imports - resurgent after the recent recession - has been connected by some economists and lawmakers from both parties to the loss of American manufacturing jobs.

Estimates of the undervaluation of the yuan, also known as the renminbi, run as high as 40 percent.

High Time the world starts taxing Chinese exports. Hope India too is raising is adjusting import tariffs on Chinese goods to correspond to the estimated undervaluation of its currency.

Enough of this nonsense.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 28, 2010
By Nat Bellocchi 白樂崎
Siding with Japan keeps in mind the big picture: Taipei Times

it was not wise to allow a fishing boat from Taiwan with several activists on board to set sail to the Diaoyutais in the middle of this month. The media in Taiwan reported that the activists, including several from Hong Kong, went there to assert “Chinese” sovereignty over the islands. {This is another trick that China uses - swift boating - Getting another group from a land ostensibly allied to the rival, to also attack the rival's claims and position. In case of Korea, they use Chaoxianzu to attack South Koreans. You can bet that whenever there is some conflict between India and China, the Chinese would get some group from within India or some neighboring country/countries to attack India's position verbally in support of PRC}

Taiwan needs to side with the forces of democracy.

It should be clear to even a casual observer that China is pushing its model of “strong economic growth combined with strict political control” — some refer to this as the “Beijing consensus” — on the world.

Taiwan, on the other hand, is still clearly a member of the democratic camp: Countries which value democracy and understand that true and equitable economic growth can only occur through adherence to the basic principles of democracy.

Looking toward the future, Taiwan needs to decide in a democratic way what the people of the island want for their future: Drift closer to China, which will inevitable mean a loss of democracy and human rights, or remain a free and open democracy.

If it wants the latter, it needs to align itself with other nations that adhere to the same value system. That means Japan: It is the closest democracy and if Taiwan’s existence is ever threatened by China, Japan and other allies in the region would no doubt align themselves with the US and come to Taiwan’s defense.

This means that Taiwan needs to maintain good relations with Japan and not let the fracas over a few goat-inhabited rocks damage ties with a friend whose support Taiwan will surely need in the future.

[Lalmohan]

apparently Hu made a speech recently (outside china) saying that average chinese corporate profits are 1-2%. Therefore any serious revaluation move against the dollar (i.e. appreciation of the renminbi) would totally wipe out all chinese corporate profits... and therefore threaten a large number of the bond investment in the chinese economy... another soverign crisis waiting to happen

[brihaspati]

Tony Montana ji: About Tibet, as far as I remember - in my post- there was an "if". "If" it was not feasible for Tibet to maintain independence on its own [due to PRC, TSP, and their western friends efforts] and India needed legitimacy to intervene, then India and Tibet could think of an autonomy framework with the Indian Union. That is a much more subtle political mechanism in a specific context - than what you broadly swipe as "imperialism" or "overlordship".

Shiv ji,
I am aware of the military capacity problem. But I do not feel it should be discussed in an open forum or even the GDF. I see TSP as part of a comprehensive set pf problems that primarily include TSP, USA, and PRC. It secondarily includes Russia, Iran, KSA pantheon, religious networks in CAR and ME and SEAsia, and domestic politics in the subcontinent. Both primary and secondary factors reach out to each other for sustenance against India.

There is a management theory about breaking down a complex objective into small pieces and solve them one at a time. Problem is that people forget that to be successful it has to be very quick. As soon as you allow other parts of the problem sufficient time to respond and react to the solution of one part - this method breaksdown. Something that has gone wrong with the policies of the USA.

So deciding that we will solve first problem 1 and then problem 2 and then problem 3 is typically not feasible on a grand scale over large regions and large scales of time.

I personally feel that we have to tackle the trinity - PRC+USA+TSP problem simultaneously. Here we may pretend to be friends with one against the two others or with the two against the third. But underlying all that is a plan to dissolve TSP and extend Indian rashtryia control over lands currently occupied by TSP - and erasure of its theological networks, land redistribution and social engineering which is impossible without central control. simultaneously have a free Tibet, which if not possible have an autonomous region allied to India. We can discuss the economic and diplomatic measures as much as we can, but we should not discuss the military side.

It is possible to tackle the problem you are mentioning if the vision is supported by political will. It does not always have to be in the conventional military sense entirely nor does it have to be entirely non-conventional. But I think we should not discuss it here. There is a kind of conservatism in military thinking that is obvious on most forums - which I feel need not be how all of the actual army command thinks. We tend to concentrate on hardware superiorities and numbers alone, whereas it could actually also depend on many other factors in combination with the two that decides outcomes. These are not necessarily tangible for quantitative analysis and it is typically those who have never really seen service or who are not constrained by military protocol who get obsessed with troop numbers and hardware only. Because these are the items that are given out in military theory meant for the public and are the only ones amenable for quantitative analysis.

[ramana]

Wonder if geo-politics will force Indian hand again? Read Lt Gen Vinay Shankar's article about need for credible deterrent.

[shiv]

apparently Hu made a speech recently (outside china) saying that average chinese corporate profits are 1-2%. Therefore any serious revaluation move against the dollar (i.e. appreciation of the renminbi) would totally wipe out all chinese corporate profits... and therefore threaten a large number of the bond investment in the chinese economy... another soverign crisis waiting to happen

Lalmullah - every businessman is always claiming that his margins are low so you can bet its a lie.

[Lalmohan]

^^^ i am sure it is, which is why the US is pushing against it hard
also if it were true then H&D loss would have been hushed up quickly
Hu might be skilfully trying to exploit current fears on soveriegn debt crises to keep the renminbi weak and chinese exports strong

[RajeshA]

A bit OT but perhaps relevant to my previous posts

X-Posting from India-US Strategic News and Discussion Thread

The danger that India faces is being identified as a "poodle" of the US just as the UK was,and get unwanted attention from a wider variety of anti-Indian Islamist terrorists.If the likes of AlQ and their international operatives see India in the future,participating with the US in military operations as the US intends us to do,then Indian interests all over the globe will be at risk.Corporate India should sternly warn the GOI that to "embrace" the US in a military relationship and express our unbridled "love" for it,as Dr.Singh shamelessly did to Bush,will only endanger corporate India,Indians worldwide and the Indian economy in the future.Any relationship should be as "equals",not as a lackey.If closest ally Britain found the US utterly selfish as Hurd has demonstrated in his book, and Cameron well understands now,then India must "sup with the US using a very long spoon".

Those Indian strategic thinkers that interact with the Think-Tankeratti in USA and the press, make it a point to underline that India is not an ally of the USA in the traditional mold, but there can be understandings with it on a variety of issues.

What MMS did by expressing his undying love for Bush was something that should have made a billion Indians puke and strategic thinkers in India to hide their faces under their pillows. It was the stupidest thing ever.

Any talk of alliance between India and USA should be done behind closed doors, and India should go every time to the NAM meet and spew some bile onto USA for the show.

Also any real cooperation between India and USA should mean that India never carries all the water. USA and India should carry the water proportionate to their power in any strategic joint venture.

[RajeshA]

Published on Sep 28, 2010
By Yuha Hayashi
China Row Fuels Japan's Right Wing: Wall Street Journal

As the dispute over the collision continues unabated, conservative lawmakers like former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara have harshly criticized the government's decision to release a captured sea captain under pressure from China, saying Japan needs to stand firm to defend its territory.

right-wing groups are beginning to raise their voices, with one group preparing for a big anti-China rally in Tokyo on Oct. 2. "China made foolish mistake in awakening Asia's sleeping tiger," wrote one person on a popular Internet chat page called Channel 2. "Now every Japanese is tuned in on maritime disputes."

"We are standing at a watershed where our ability to defend the Japanese people and this nation itself is tested," the group named Sosei Nihon, translated roughly as Creation Japan, said in its statement. "We hereby declare we will resolutely seek to overthrow the Kan administration which has damaged our nation's interest, trust and dignity."

Where is the Indian anti-PRC Nationalist Lobby, which sees to it, that Indian Govt. stands up to Chinese pressures, and protects Indian territorial and strategic interests?

[ramana]

RajeshA, The true nationalists across the spectrum are quiet and watching the scenario develop. No need to move and show the houbara.

[Lalmohan]

^^^ RajeshA-ji. as i said not so long ago, the mango indian educated person is a strategic moron. There is no culture of thinking of the big issues, unless you are above the norm (of the elite)
the mango villager has better strategic sense and patriotism - as you will see in any jawan who puts his life on the line, or village boy who rescues a drowning pilot