US and PRC relationship & India

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 08 Sep 2010 23:40

Yes Ramana Ji I know this thread to be old.Regarding polemic's I hope you know that I never meant it, anyway will refrain.Thnx again.
Added Later: will dig deeper into the thread for the next couple of days.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Sep 2010 23:48

ramana garu,

I just wanted some clarification. This thread is called "US and PRC relationship & India". In aftermath of reports that Pakistan has sent in soldiers in POK, there has been an increased interest in giving thought on "Managing China's Rise"/"Containment of China". In this context, we are exploring different strategies to that effect, however these strategies have to do with other countries also, especially those geographically next to PRC, especially in East Asia.

1) Is this the right thread?
2) Should some new Thread be created, e.g. "Managing China's Rise"/"Containment of China"?
3) Would it possible to transfer the relevant posts into that thread by any moderator or would you suggest x-posting (which could mess up the chronology a bit of the current posts on this topic, and would require cooperation of all posters here)?

Thanks.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Sep 2010 00:01

I agree with RajeshA.
this thread has become mainly related to India's response to the rise of china and how it can work with US, other powers/nations and by itself due to the prevailing geopolitical situation. dragon has awakened the sleeping elephant.
The title can be suitably modified to incorporate these also.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 00:16

Or rather on this note start a new thread and archive this one.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2010 00:39

I'll start a new thread!

jagga · Post by **jagga** » 09 Sep 2010 00:50

'US trying to drive wedge between China, Pak using India'

Accusing the US of trying to drive a wedge between "tested friends" China and Pakistan, the official media here today said that America was "poking its nose" into the Sino-Pak ties using "India's hand" with "hyped up" reports of the presence of Chinese troops in PoK.
Commenting for the first time on the recent 'New York Times' report about presence of up to 11,000 troops in PoK and denial of visa to Lt Gen B S Jaswal who heads troops in Jammu and Kashmir, 'People's Daily', the mouthpiece of the ruling CPC, said the US seems to have "fixated on the strategic and military indications" behind the China-Pakistan ties.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 01:04

RajeshA wrote:I'll start a new thread!

Please report the posts you want transferred to new thread. Thanks for the initiative.
ramana

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2010 02:43

ramana garu,

I have reported posts from pages 23-25 which IMO were relevant to the new thread. I hope that if the the reported posts are transferred, there are not too many holes in the discussions. I don't know if it is possible to simply copy them to the new thread instead of moving them.

I think almost all the posts on pages 26, 27, and 28 are mostly relevant. These I have not reported. They are just too many. I hope you can transfer them to the new thread without the report function.

Thank you very much!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Sep 2010 11:29

Summers in Beijing

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... in_beijing

What was the administration trying to achieve by sending Larry Summers to Beijing? What message was it trying to convey? And was the intended audience American or Chinese?

...

More likely, Dr. Summers' participation was intended for a U.S. domestic audience. He needed to be there alongside deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. There were sound reasons for a security conversation with the Chinese, from sanctions on Iran to a restoration of a dialogue between the U.S. and Chinese militaries. Donilon could have accomplished that on his own, but it would have been politically unacceptable for an administration trying to focus on job creation to appear to neglect economic concerns with China.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2010 16:25

ONE INDIA & ONE CHINA by B. Raman: Raman's Strategic Analysis Blog

we should not fight shy of turning the primary focus of the talks with Mr.Obama on China. We do not need strategic alliances in relation to Pakistan. We are capable of taking care of Pakistan with our own means. We would need strategic alliances in relation to China. Hence the importance of free and frank talks with Mr.Obama on this.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Sep 2010 22:31

US discusses China's 'assertiveness' with India

Amid concern in India over recent Chinese assertiveness, the US Thursday said it was keeping a watch on increasing Chinese activities in South China Sea and shared a common goal of making Beijing a constructive contributor to regional security.

He said China's activities in the region and its intentions were among the issues that were discussed between him and Indian officials.

Admiral Willard's visit comes soon after a Pentagon report on the military capabilities of China, which says the 2.25-million strong People's Liberation Army has moved 'more advanced and survivable' solid-fuelled CSS-5 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles closer to the borders with India 'to improve regional deterrence'.
China is also developing contingency plans to move airborne troops into the region, says the report.
The China issue is likely to figure in discussion when Defence Minister A.K. Antony goes to Washington towards the end of the month.

Any change in military relations or military manoeuvres by China will be a cause of concern,' Willard said, adding that it was up to the Indian establishment to deal with the issue.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 23:44

^^ Funny you should post the discussion about 'assertiveness"!

Nightwatch, 7Sept, 2010

China-India: Yesterday, 6 September Indian Prime Minister Singh told New Delhi newspaper editors that, ""China would like to have a foothold in South Asia, and we have to reflect on this reality." India had to be aware of this, and also of a "new assertiveness among the Chinese - and it was difficult to tell which way it will go."

Today, 7 September, in an effort to downplay Prime Minister Singh's remarks, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said China is committed to safeguarding peace and stability in Asia, including South Asia. Jiang said China is one of the important members of Asia, and that seeking common development with it, South Asia and other countries is in the common interest of "all of us."

Comment: Several features of the exchange are worth noting. First the Indians are aware of and are monitoring Chinese inroads in the Indian Ocean region, which they claim as their sphere of influence. Second, the Indians describe this as new assertiveness, a term not yet recognized in Western commentaries. Third, the Chinese attempt to assuage Indian concerns is actually a deliberate challenge in which China claims interests in al South Asia, as well as East Asia.

Looks like Dupleecity caught on fast and learnt new vocabulary. I think the usage by MMS drew their attention.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Sep 2010 00:26

ramana wrote:^^ Funny you should post the discussion about 'assertiveness"!

Nightwatch, 7Sept, 2010

China-India: Yesterday, 6 September Indian Prime Minister Singh told New Delhi newspaper editors that, ""China would like to have a foothold in South Asia, and we have to reflect on this reality." India had to be aware of this, and also of a "new assertiveness among the Chinese - and it was difficult to tell which way it will go."

Why doesnt Mr.MMS assert himself by spending his birthday in Tawang? It would be a great reply to Chinese. His birthday is on 26th this month.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 10 Sep 2010 00:36

6th July would be nice...long time to go

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 10 Sep 2010 00:38

^^^^
PM saying that whatever he told about china was off the record to the editors during his one of the rare press meets. TOI initially was the one carried the news. I believe Abhinav Gupta TOI editor? was taken to task.
Anyway the damage was done and was carried all over the media which IMO is good that many came to know about it.
TOI by default did the right thing at least on this ocassion.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 02:05

Why would a PM meet the press and make off the record remarks.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Sep 2010 02:08

Bade wrote:Why would a PM meet the press and make off the record remarks.

Are the Indian press working for the western agencies.
That is how it is done in many countries and Indian press and media are a product of the western institutions.

They pretend to bring news about India and abroad for the Indians but are secretly collect information for foreign agencies and are paid informers. Most of the western trained sociologists have become like that.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 02:10

Need to have heart-to-heart talk. The regular channels (I&B) were used to spread party/family line.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 10 Sep 2010 05:57

Tibetan hope for Obama's India visit

The latest United States government report on Tibet negotiations has sparked off speculation and hope among the exiled Tibetan community that the Tibet issue might be on US President Barack Obama's agenda during his maiden visit to India in November.

The US government also recently called on Nepal to honor a past commitment to allow Tibetan refugees the freedom of travel to India through Nepal.

US Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Atul Keshap reminded Rawal of a United Nations-brokered deal to allow fleeing Tibetans free passage to India's Dharamsala - the de facto capital of Tibetan exiles - through Nepal, government officials were quoted as saying.

It has also added to speculation that Tibet may be among the issues Obama would discuss with Indian leaders during his visit to India from November 7 to 10.

The Tibet issue again caused a ripple in India-China relations on August 11 when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met the Dalai Lama

The meeting with Manmohan came just a month after India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao held talks with the Dalai Lama in the northern Indian hill station of Dharamsala.

An exchange of views on the progress of the talks between Dalai Lama and Beijing should be on the agenda. The government of India should take the initiative in proposing the inclusion of this item on the agenda. His Holiness should also be invited to any reception hosted by our president in honor of President Obama," said B Raman, director of the Institute for Topical Studies and an associate of the Chennai Center for China Studies.

Ombaba had been keeping quiet for sometime almost sleeping on it. Now suddenly the cobwebs are being cleaned and ....
recent weeks there were naval exercises of china sea, angry words exchanged thru media, clinton speak in east asia etc etc and some speculation about meeting tibetans. hmmm

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 15 Sep 2010 03:38

Afghanistan's fate may matter most for China

Although India is worried that it is the target of the PLA’s expansion in the Indian Ocean Rim, the reality is that India plays only a subsidiary role in the calculations of the Chinese military. The PLA sees the United States as its main rival, and responds to India only to the extent that it perceives New Delhi to be subservient to US diktat. It is hardly a secret that the PLA would like the US military to exit Asia. It is likely to view a US defeat in Afghanistan as a catalyst for this process. It may also see that Pakistan’s army has a role to play.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Sep 2010 10:01

How long can Beijing and Washington handle their relationship?

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

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 15:09

Published August 2010
Chess on the High Seas by Michael Mazza: American Enterprise Institute

The Obama administration's hopes that its warmer approach to Beijing would yield a more fruitful Sino-American relationship have been disappointed. Rather than adopting a more cooperative bearing, Beijing has become increasingly assertive over the past year. Recognizing the resulting detriment to U.S. interests and Asia-Pacific peace and security, the Obama administration is now pushing back. This new direction may convince Beijing to reconsider its recent assertive policies, but for now, the United States and China have entered a period of tense relations, raising the odds of a true crisis. Particularly worrisome is Chinese media coverage of this summer's quarrels, which has been nationalistic and anti-American in tone and content. Such coverage makes conflicts more difficult to resolve, as the Chinese regime cannot afford to look weak in the eyes of an incensed citizenry. Policymakers in both countries should be aware of this dynamic as they approach any additional disputes in the coming months.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2010 21:24

X-Post...

Krisna wrote:

ramana wrote:Its demographics driving the geopolitics. PRC is rising power. US is decling. But both want to keep India checked as that will be the future rising power. Recall all those Goldman Sachs country reports etc 10 years ago.

And Indian elite is trading off that they can make a baragin to curb future power if they are allowed now to run the show.

currently china is showing off its strength, making US aware of its strength.
Should not US curb this attitude. If US declining why would it not like to be still on top. It can create some enimity between the 2 other powers- India and china and watch from the sidelines. If the 2 fight then their powers are reduced considerably due to the bruising. during this period it can position itself to keep a distance from future potential challengers- ie superpower for more decades easily.
If US helps china then easily china will be unquestioned number two power. It will then take on US.
why should US do that which can threaten itself.

Previously US helped china due to SU factor and cold war.
Now there is no cold war. it is under threat by potential rising powers.
china is nowhere near US in superpowerdom, but the most likely one to threaten.
If US thinks of making G2 with china then it is a foolish superpower, so India better prepare that china goes on top.
China will not be happy with being one of the G2 powers and surely will dismantle US once it spreads its wings outside asia unfettered.
US is only country to have access to 2 oceans. China by making inroads into IOR is trying to make it the second country to have access of 2 oceans.
It somehow does not make sense to me. I dont understand this.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 17 Sep 2010 22:08

Detecting subtle shifts in the balance of power

Subtle shifts in the balance of power are difficult to detect yet of foremost importance to peace and stability. And even if detected in a timely fashion, policymakers can be slow to react. But maintaining a balance of power favorable to one's interests is one of a president's key tasks. On that score, our leaders(US policy makers) have been negligent for over a decade.

Occasionally, presidents detect shifts in the military balance when it is too late and then compound the problem by responding with questionable policy choices. For example, President Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation was, in part, a response to what seemed to be a loss of the U.S nuclear monopoly and Soviet conventional supremacy in continental Europe

Some of President Nixon and Carter's questionable arms control ideas were a response to a shift in the strategic balance in favor of the Soviets. Unfortunately, most of the time, policymakers do not react to an adversary's growing capabilities until met with disaster (e.g. Pearl Harbor, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 9/11).

Today the balance of power in Asia is shifting.

Take an example from just 14 years ago. Realizing how destabilizing were China's missile tests conducted in the waters around Taiwan, President Clinton sent carrier battle groups near the Taiwan Strait. The missile tests stopped, Taiwan held its elections, and conflict was avoided.

Today, any president would think twice about doing the same. Why? China has arguably gained conventional supremacy around its periphery. Without remediation this could become a hard fact.

Beijing has been focused like a laser beam on how to coerce and intimidate Taiwan while deterring U.S. and Japanese intervention. Washington has not given the same attention to defense. Our shipbuilding program has atrophied, our ability to protect the bases from which our aircraft fly is non-existent, and there is nothing in the current navy or air force programs of record that demonstrate our attentiveness to this problem.

A president choosing to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan would now face a host of bad options, most of which are dangerously escalatory

The good news is that it is not too late to restore some stability to the equation. The United States is a far richer and more stable nation than China. With marginal adjustments in how we spend our finite tax-payer dollars, we can restore a favorable conventional balance in the Pacific that would lessen Chinese temptations to use force and provide us with more strategically stable defensive options should Beijing succumb to those temptations. We seek a cooperative relationship with China, which makes it difficult to think about the unthinkable -- a conflict with China. But a conflict with the United States is just about all the PLA thinks about, and for the sake of peace we must take them seriously.

where will India fit in this equation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2010 23:37

X-post..I think it belongs here.

ramana wrote:2010 is a landmark year for Indian sub-continent. Its the year India lost more of POK to PRC.

In 1963, Ayub Khan ceded POK areas to PRC by treaty.

In 2010, Zaradri & Kiyanai have ceded Gilgit-Baltistan to PRC without treaty.

IOW PRC has expanded the area under its control from Aksai Chin to G-B becasue it makes it that much more difficult for India to recover POK.

Or putting it differently UPA-2 had its 1962 all over again without a shot being fored and its Intel guys not havign clue except to dust out old reports of PRC presence.

I think B. Raman's article is first strike to blame someone else than the ruling party before people realise its 1962 allover again.

It means we lost Gilgit-Baltistan to PRC wihtout a shot being fired and dont even know it.

Truly the Dilli Billi savants were right when they said in future wars wont be fought! The enemy will just occupy it.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 18 Sep 2010 07:25

China can't occupy that area without exposing itself to vulnerability.

Uighurs are embedded within the jihadi ranks, and jihadis are capable of acting roughly towards China, as the shocked Musharraf found out during the Red Mosque siege. That is the nature of jihadism and decentralized irregular warfare in general - the inherent reduction in centralized command-and-control needed to enforce adherence to deeper strategic goals and policies. Sometimes the jihadi animals do things that catch their trainers by surprise.

If all jihadis in the region were perfectly loyal to Islamabad, there would have been no Red Mosque siege, no 9/11, no uprising in Pashtun lands.

Likewise, in exposing its personnel in POK, China is presumptuously taking a lot for granted. It may recieve a rude awakening. China would be dangerously over-extending itself in POK, and its personnel could be just as easily picked off there as in Balochistan.

It is the nature of Chinese to act like the bull in the China shop. They aren't used to treading lightly. If ever-appeasing India can suffer problems in J&K, then it wouldn't take much for China to suffer even graver missteps.

If I were RAW, I would use the current unrest in J&K as a cover to spread similar activity over to the other side of the border - especially in those areas where China has arrived. We have little to lose from doing this. If anti-Indian propagandists in the West (eg. Atlanticists) are eagerly asserting that unrest in the Valley is due to popular discontent, then it's easily plausible for us to say that Kashmiriat populism also extends to rejecting Chinese occupation like Beijing's current encroachment on POK.

Get it? Judo. You use the momentum of the enemy against him and for your gain.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Sep 2010 07:43

Hillary going back to Vietnam

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... engagement

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Sep 2010 08:53

Sanjay M wrote:China can't occupy that area without exposing itself to vulnerability.
....
If I were RAW, I would use the current unrest in J&K as a cover to spread similar activity over to the other side of the border - especially in those areas where China has arrived. We have little to lose from doing this. If anti-Indian propagandists in the West (eg. Atlanticists) are eagerly asserting that unrest in the Valley is due to popular discontent, then it's easily plausible for us to say that Kashmiriat populism also extends to rejecting Chinese occupation like Beijing's current encroachment on POK.

The problem is Northern Areas people are not Kashmiris, even though from all the din and noise in the valley, they try to paint a picture as though the whole of J&K is in flames.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 18 Sep 2010 21:51

^^^ I know that and you know that, but for purposes of destabilizing the newly Chinese-Occupied Kashmir (COK) areas we can use the unrest in our areas to claim that it has spread to COK areas. After all, it's not as if Kashmiris will go out of their way to oppose and argue that COK happily belongs to China.

Kashmiriat types are happy to see everybody destabilizing each other, because then they get maximum attention for themselves. So why should we be the only ones not to foment instability?
Nice guys finish last. There's no reason for us to meekly GUBO for more COK. Beijing was always satisfied with its traditionally small COK, but if it continues to enlarge at the current rate, then it will lead to an explosion that will leave a lasting stain on the region.

Now that the Chinese have turned to sucking in more COK, then we need to expose their COK-sucking and ensure that the whole world catches them in the act. Fomenting jihad against them will do that, and it will damage Sino-Pak relations, since Pak is never in a truly strong position to stamp out jihadism with its myriad of tentacles. They may be able to arrest a Mullah Biradar here and there, but if there is a grassroots animosity against Chinese incursion, then Pak action against them will only drive more wedges between itself and those it haplessly tries to control for its own ends.

An infected COK will not make the Chinese happy, and will give them a rude awakening on the risks of exposing themselves through such adventurism. They will feel more cautious about embracing their Pakistani partners afterwards, and will withdraw back towards isolation again.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Sep 2010 03:04

PRC move into POK Gilgit-Baltistan could be a proxy fight with US. They are picking up pieces as they can to prevent falling into rival hands. Another way of saying is PRC is reaching for Asian domination as a step for future dominance. If so this move is a primary challenge to US and not only India.

Or PRC has become US's TSP.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Sep 2010 03:11

ramana wrote:PRC move into POK Gilgit-Baltistan could be a proxy fight with US. They are picking up pieces as they can to prevent falling into rival hands. Another way of saying is PRC is reaching for Asian domination as a step for future dominance. If so this move is a primary challenge to US and not only India.

Or PRC has become US's TSP.

PRC has become a land power and not a naval power. It has taken the easy path to expand on the land and at a time when the superpower is the weakest trying to rebuild.

naren · Post by **naren** » 19 Sep 2010 05:36

Sanjay M wrote:Beijing was always satisfied with its traditionally small COK, but if it continues to enlarge at the current rate, then it will lead to an explosion that will leave a lasting stain on the region.

Now that the Chinese have turned to sucking in more COK, then we need to expose their COK-sucking and ensure that the whole world catches them in the act.
...
An infected COK will not make the Chinese happy, and will give them a rude awakening on the risks of exposing themselves through such adventurism.

For clarity sake, how about calling it "Chinese Occupied Communist Kashmir" ?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Sep 2010 05:47

PRC has become US's TSP

That is what I thought and said moons ago!

But I don't think that is a true representation. It looks like USA:PRC (21st century) :: UK:USA(20th century)

naren · Post by **naren** » 19 Sep 2010 06:07

Relationship between US and PRC is like that of emperor and his concubine. (imagine Emperor = Col Sanders, a kind looking family type old man, but may be a closeted pedophile. Concubine = Gong Li in "Curse of the Golden Flower", aged but sexy, everyone wants to have fun with her, but no commitments). The emperor is "in" for the wealth which comes as part of the marriage package. The concubine is "in" for building up her clout. Both of them hate each other, but cannot do without either. The concubine always does backhand dealings to put the emperor in trouble. The emperor always keeps the beach in her place. All the while, maintaining an image of a happy family ("G2").

Where is India in this picture ? (Imagine India == our padre de la nacion). Honest, hard working, nice, well behaved, middle class person but in reality a door mat.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Sep 2010 06:12

Another view:

All the news out of China indicates that the hardliners are positioning themselves for leadership change in 2012. The same hardliners who would like to put the red flag on everything with any kind of resource in Asia are itching to show off their wealth and strength. I am going to go out on the limb and predict that there will be a limited battle in the Pacific where the Chinese are "gonna get got" (to use language from The Wire). The likelihood increases with Pres. Obama's chances of a loss in 2012.

Why is this of interest to India? Unlike the late 1970's war with the Vietnamese where the Chinese walked w/ a loss and yet glossed over it, they will have a tough time covering this one up. A China on the defensive is less likely to bully India.

http://www.asiasent inel.com/ index.php? option=com_ content&task= view&id=2701& Itemid=171

China, the US and Clashing Aims

Written by Ehsan Ahrari

Friday, 17 September 2010

A rising superpower confronts a fading one

No document reflects the conflicting strategic position of a declining superpower and that of a rising one more aptly than the Department of Defense's congressionally- mandated annual reports on China's military modernization.

The Pentagon issued the latest version of that report entitled, "Military Security and Development Involving the People's Republic of China" (aka China's military rise) on August 20. That report was issued almost simultaneously with the global splash of a headline that the PRC had surpassed Japan as the number two economy.

Considering the fact that China's economy has been experiencing average annual gross domestic product growth of 9 percent for the past six years or so, it can be expected continue to channel a portion of that wealth into financing military modernization. This is evidenced by China's resolve to build aircraft carriers, which it considers the ultimate symbol of the military capability of a potential superpower.
http://www.chinabil ity.com/GDP. htm

As much as China remains a rising economic power, its military power is not likely to be a match for America's military prowess and capabilities. China knows that. That is why it is spending a lot of its resources developing "anti-access/ area denial" technologies and capabilities, especially involving Taiwan. The Chinese thinking seems to be that, in case of a military conflict involving Taiwan, the PRC would improve its chances of victory if it can succeed in holding off US military intervention through the use of such technologies.

Beijing is also spending a lot of its resources on developing "countermeasures" to nullify America's ever-escalating capabilities to project power in far off lands. The 2010 DoD report takes a detailed look at those capabilities.

Starting from the awe-inspiring performance of America's military in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the PLA's top brass, as well as defense-related scientists, have been spending many of their resources studying the specifics of America's space dominance, as much as those details are available in open sources. In addition, the espionage wing of the PLA and other civilian agencies are also busy collecting data in the field on the use of space by the American military. China knows how integral a role America's mastery of space has played in that country's military capabilities to maintain full-spectrum dominance in warfare.

Second, no military belonging to any country has been more absorbed in implementing the "revolution in military affairs" and digitization of warfare in its combat capabilities. In fact, China has gone way beyond the use of information warfare in the field of defense. It has also mastered "malware" (or malicious software) espionage, which it has used to spy on Tibetan dissidents. Malware is used for espionage in defense as well as in the military and intelligence fields.

Its purpose is to collect data as well as to corrupt targeted computer systems. According to one study on the subject, "Few organizations outside the defense and intelligence sector could withstand such an attack, Given the high interest of the PRC in this field, and given that it is a closed system, its competitors (especially US government agencies) not only have to constantly remain on guard in developing electronic countermeasures, but find themselves in the dark about the latest capabilities of IT specialists on the Chinese side who are in charge of running that country's "black programs."

Third, the PRC is also using its defense experts to study all the military exercises in China's neighborhood involving the American military – Japan, South Korea, Australia and India. Electronic eavesdropping also works well for China in studying American maneuvers. In that regard, China's "String of Pearls" strategy, an attempt to build client-state relationships to surround India, has not even begun to bear fruit, in terms of providing a treasure trove of intelligence on the activities of the navies of the aforementioned countries.

Fourth, the most impressive aspect of the US military's war-fighting capability for the PLA is the ostensible ease with which it develops sui generis operations for each campaign conducted since the Operation Desert Storm, which is regarded as the "first information- based war." The strategy used in the Kosovo war, Operation Allied Force, was a reminder of the one used during the American war in Vietnam. That strategy focused on gradual escalation of air strikes without the threat of ground forces. In the invasion of Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom, it was the exotic use of spotters from the Special Forces that directed air attacks on the Taliban from the ground, while also directing the offensive power of the ground forces of the Northern Alliance. For invading Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Centcom initiated the conventional approach of relying on ground troops for the brunt of its operations.

What was different about that operation was that the chief focus of the "Powell doctrine" – the use of overwhelming force – was shelved in favor of a minimalist approach regarding the size of force. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former Centcom Commander General Tommy Franks thought that they were making a unique contribution to combat by creating "shock and awe" with a minimal number of ground troops. That was more a "transformational agenda" of Rumsfeld, who was "appalled to discover how much the forces were still fixated on preparing for big wars and purchasing high-profile weapons platforms rather than developing smaller, nimbler forces geared to the actual contingencies he thought they were likely to face." In their attempt to correct that perceived archaic approach, Rumsfeld and Franks might have gone too far in reducing the force size. General Anthony, who preceded Franks as Commander of Centcom, immediately went on record in pointing out that "his own war plan for invading Iraq had a couple of additional divisions – not for the war fighting, but for what they call the consolidation and exploitation phase at the end of the war."

However, even if the Iraqi quagmire that followed the collapse of the government of Saddam Hussein has not reestablished the significance of Powell's insistence on the use of "overwhelming force," it has certainly discarded Rumsfeld's transformational agenda related to size of the force. One of the major lessons that the US military learned was that it must get ready for "post-conflict" contingencies before invading a country.

The top brass of the PLA watched these developments with much interest and drew their own lessons for future combat that their armed forces might face. The most significant lesson that the PLA drew from the U.S. military is to never stop studying the latter's unique contribution to the prosecution of war. Since the United States has been involved in too many major combats since the Gulf War of 1991, no military can claim that it has more combat experience than America's. And any military that wishes to remain at the cutting edge of its profession without paying the cost of actual prosecution of war would serve itself well to become an ardent student of America's campaigns.

Every time the Pentagon's report on China's military is issued, one can expect a repeat of the following: (1) When the document is released, it contains the standard statement that China is still following the late Deng Xiaoping advice: "observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capabilities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership;" (2) It highlights the developments of China's military modernization, which remains one of its best contributions to the subject anywhere in the world; (3) It accentuates the types of strides being made in China's space capabilities to take countermeasures against a potential enemy, the PRC's advances in information and electronic war, and especially in the realm of access denial.

The U.S. military has rightly concluded that China can inflict great damage to its space assets during a military conflict, and that damage is likely to come during the very early stage of the outbreak of hostilities; and (4) It criticizes China for not being truthful about the size of its military spending and not being transparent about the real purpose of its military modernization. On this last point, the United States' criticism is quite effective, because it is closely being read by all countries of East Asia, and by China's major rival, India.

The PRC's standard response regarding America's perspectives on its military modernization is the accusation that the lone superpower is attempting to contain it. In response to the latest issuance of this document, one Chinese colonel of the PLAF, Dai Xu, accused the US in an OpEd piece of "strangulating China softly."

The timing of the 2010 version of the Pentagon's report on China's military was not particularly good because US-China ties are undergoing an icy phase emanating from President Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama and the US decision to sell US$6 billion worth of armament to Taiwan. China responded by suspending the contacts between militaries of the two nations. The Obama administration characterized China's response as an "overreaction" to those events.

The United States is having difficulty realizing that China's perceptions of itself and of the lone superpower are undergoing a palpable transformation. Since the PRC envisages the lone superpower as a declining hegemon, and since its self-perception is that of a rising power (and even of a future a superpower), the current leaders in Beijing believe the former must accord the latter more deferential treatment. When China does the US a favor in global economic matters, the latter must reciprocate on other heady issues like not selling arms to Taiwan or not making a point of receiving the Dalai Lama.

The notion of reciprocity (shu) is a quintessential aspect of Chinese culture. The Sage Confucius reported to have instructed one of his disciples that his doctrine of shu "has only one simple thread running through it" – "Loyalty and reciprocity, and that's all."

One has to add to that the major Confucian principle of the doctrine of hexinliyi ("core interests"). In the context of Western thinking, hexinliyi is equivalent to vital interests on which no country would compromise.

For China, these include, first and foremost, the survival of its political system. The second is inviolability of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, two principles that are also inextricably linked with that country's bitter memories of what it frequently refers to as "the century of humiliation. " The third core interest of China is steady societal and economic development.

What is interesting to note is that, as China continues its awesome economic rise, it seems to have initiated the process of expanding the list of its core interests. In the past, only Taiwan and Tibet were included in that list. Lately, however, it has also added the South China Sea as a core issue. Considering the fact that the PRC has shown no inclination to negotiate on the "old" core issues, it is expected to do the same regarding the South China Sea. There is a major difference between its old and its new core issues.

On its old core interests (Taiwan and Tibet) no other country is claiming sovereignty over them (even though one can argue that Taiwan claims to be a sovereign nation and its sovereignty is recognized by numerous countries, but their numbers are steadily dwindling). However, in the case of the South China Sea, the interests of other states of East Asia come into conflict with that of China.

For a country that has been so vociferous about America's hubris related to its unilateralism and "hegemonism, " China's decision to elevate the significance of the South China Sea as a core issue is nothing short of its own manifestation of arrogance. One can objectively state that China's behavior might merely be a demonstration of how a rising or "wannabe" superpower behaves.

However, that type of hubris will only escalate the suspicion of its East Asian neighbors regarding the real purpose of China's rise and especially of its military modernization.
America's hardline China-watchers, who felt content with the Bush administration' s proclivities for unilateralism, do not like the Pentagon's 2010 report on China's military preparedness. The United States' attitude toward China went through a noticeable transformation in Bush's second term, however, when he direly needed that country's cooperation on the Six-Party Talks and especially during the global economic meltdown of 2008-2009.

Still, even when there is a recurring softening of American official attitude toward China, the notion of competition remains uppermost amidst almost all the China-watchers of America and among America-watchers inside China.

Unlike the superpower competition of the Cold War years, the current competition between Beijing and Washington is not predominantly ideological (even though one has to remain conscious of the fact that the United States is a liberal democracy while the PRC is an illiberal system with predominant features of a capitalistic economy). But the Sino-US competition is for primacy in the world between the lone superpower, which is determined not to lose its top position in the hierarchy of nations, and a rising power, which is equally resolute to become number one.

Two important questions for the second decade of the 21st Century are whether China can be satisfied even by becoming a coequal of the United States; and whether the latter would be amenable to accepting China as its coequal? A very important, but a tacit, aspect related to the latter question is that the United States should also be ready for the scenario of China becoming number one among the hierarchy of nations within a decade or so.

Those are hard questions to answer because the United States never had a coequal during the heyday of the Cold War. The former Soviet Union was arguably America's coequal in the ownership of nuclear arsenals. In the realm of economics, however, the USSR was very much a Third World country. China, on the contrary, has turned the Soviet template on its head by becoming an economic power first, then using its economic wealth to become a military superpower.

That may be why the United States remains so concerned about China's rise. As long as China's economy remains as vibrant as it has been for a decade or so, its rise as a superpower appears inexorable.

Despite the rising spirals of competition between them, neither the US nor China appears disposed to seek confrontation that has a high potential of rapidly escalating. Both – especially the latter – have a lot to lose if a war breaks out between the two. China has accomplished much in the past three decades. It is the "world's largest trading nation."
In the words of Zheng Bijian of the China Reform Forum, "The most significant strategic choice the Chinese have made was to embrace economic globalization rather than detach themselves from it." And it has not shown any intention of risking such magnificent gains. In view of their clashing aspirations, their mutual ties "will never be warm. But they could well be 'workmanlike. "

The best hope for the world is that the U.S.-China's Janus-faced cooperative and competitive strategic ties always remain manageable and open for frequently recurring rapprochements.

Ehsan Ahrari, Ph.D. is a specialist in great power relations and transnational security. His latest book on great power relations is entitled, The Great Powers and the Hegemon: Strategic Maneuvers. He can be reached at

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2010 23:59

sanjaykumar wrote:In fact the US China equilibrium needs to shift a little more towards China. India will be welcomed into the UNSC as a natural (praise be the heavens). Right now the only reason India is not at the high table is that China is relatively too weak and has been careful not to threatene US vital interests. Especially since India has opted to join multilateral containment protocols alongside Japan, US, Australia. It is only a question of a few months or a year before they exercise with South Korea to be sure.

Perhaps India sold itself too cheaply. Perhaps at the time these arrangements were made, the US was indeed the sure thing. Only now it looks more in need of some support itself. India got some technology (cf the accelerating missile program), uranium and has been conferred some respectability in spite of illegitimately losing its nuclear virginity (twice!).

If China's bubble economy keeps being endlessly fed stimulus dollars, if the US keeps deflating its debt, if the Yuan is relentlessly forced up, if US household savings goes to a lowly 5%, if American culture veers away from Walmart as the opium of the masses, China's century will have a premature and rapid denouement. The Faustian bargain made by Chinese with the CCP is due for termination. That is even if they are successful as a middle income country, political liberalisation, which will inevitably follow, carries the seeds of the dissolution of China, exactly the same as the other communist/authoritarian empire of the twentieth century. I believe these things will come to pass. India needs to position itself as the new low cost goods supplier. This means a business friendly culture which is anathema to Indian politicians as they lose patronage.

China is hostage to its own contradictions.

Can we keep track of these markers?

Thanks sanjay for the good post.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 21 Sep 2010 00:43

sanjaykumar wrote:Political liberalisation, which will inevitably follow, carries the seeds of the dissolution of China, exactly the same as the other communist/authoritarian empire of the twentieth century.

I dont agree with this. This is based on the central western world view that "People desire liberty". That is not true, people desire what they have been brainwashed to desire. Case in point is the Pakis. Going by your logic, all military Coups & administration by Feudal elite must have splintered the country. It has not. Because Pakis desire (a) India's destruction (b) More "Pureness" (Pakistaniyat). As long as any ruling class panders to (a) and (b), they can hold on to power, even at the cost of teaming masses with no food or shelter. The unwashed teaming hungry masses will gladly salute the army, send their sons and daughters to Jihad and wait patiently for Ghazwa-e-behind. The only set of conditions under which Pakis will go to pieces is if promises regarding (a) and (b) are not kept to the fullest, in which case, people revolt and in an attempt to become more pure, kill off the less pure: In short, why Pakis are going to pieces today. They are pursuing Pakistaniyat. If tomorrow OBL is declared President of Pakistan, you would have a strong unified Pakistan -- barring the occasional RAPE who wants to walk with her ankles uncovered or the occasional Jernail who wants to swill his whiskey

Let us wait for China's destruction after Pakistan goes to pieces.

US is a lesser case in point. The country is ruled by the elite -- an amalgam of super rich from the financial industry and the military industrial complex. The people are okay with it, because of the social contract with the government is the understanding that people get to pursue the "American dream": A house in the suburbs, a big SUV and cheap gas prices. People get pissed only if this contract is broken. So is "liberty" really keeping the US together? All paeans which are sung on the altar of liberty non withstanding--People remember their bibles and their guns only when economy goes sour and they cant pay their mortgages. You scare them with terrorism and out goes liberty before you can finish saying "Patriot Act".

China can continue as a strong and unified entity. The upper business classes in the Communist Party (who pay lip service to Communism) whose business enterprise is based on the teaming masses of low wage workers. A Pakistan in the making, where you replace land with industry, feudals with business owners, religion with money and unwashed Abduls with Chinese stitching socks. The common Chinese are fed the opium of "China's century", the "Han's rightful place" and a heady mixture of Xenophobia and Nationalism. This can sustain a country for eternity (unless someone in power grows a heart and wants to change things). Case in point is Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenistan (Look up the at once ridiculous and poignant saga of his book "Ruhnama" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhnama ) and everyone's favorite dictator Kim Jong Il and his father before that, who held on to power for pretty much eternity -- even at the cost of a population that couldnt eat. Chinese population is comparably brainwashed -- though in much subtler ways.

A reverse case in point is Soviet Union. Appeal to Race didnt work (they werent a unified race), Appeal to Nationalism didnt work (Balkans had strong national identity anyway), they couldnt be bought off with money and Appeal to communist ideology was half hearted and did not overcome the above fractures. The result: Balkanization.

In the history of the world, people of the same race who formed a country splintered only under (a) Linguistic & Regional nationalism [England vs France, Pakis vs Bangladesh] (b) Geographical distance and poor communication leading to a separate political & economic identity [US/UK/Australia] (c) Feuding centers of power [Civil Wars] (d) Introduction of religion and/or revolutionary political philosophy [Partition of India, Communist revolutions]

We can safely rule of (a) and (b) for China. (Ofcourse, discounting Taiwan, Tibet & Xinxiang which are mixtures of various proportion of a,b,c,d) The communist party is careful enough to quash (c) by not allowing for democracy (so that people get a chance for individual power-base, which can then become collective power base through collaboration -- think political parties) and (d) is ruled out by regularly killing off people like Falun gong.

China will splinter only if the Communist party itself splinters. And that is bad for business, and they know it. And they will be united within the party. Let us not make two mistakes (a) Paki mistake of assuming that Indian collapse is "next year" (b) Western Holier than thou attitude of drinking their own kool-aid: About how they practice "liberty" and how that is their unifying force.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Sep 2010 00:54

Anujan wrote:
sanjaykumar wrote:Political liberalisation, which will inevitably follow, carries the seeds of the dissolution of China, exactly the same as the other communist/authoritarian empire of the twentieth century.
I dont agree with this. This is based on the central western world view that "People desire liberty". That is not true, people desire what they have been brainwashed to desire.

IT is about the religion and the culture in the east and it is given high value. China will be reformed by true religion. They have a great past to be confined to this fascist communist facade. Religion will rescue the Chinese from its tyranny.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Sep 2010 00:56

Anujan ji,

Great post.

But I think, there are chinks in the Chinese national consolidation project, and the CPC's nationalist propaganda of a 'China of a Greater Chinese People'. It can start with exploiting the Tibet, Xinjiang fissures in PRC. These fissures can create further fissures moving Eastwards where people find another reason for pushing for decentralization. This can lead to regional power centers, who resist the diktat of Beijing.

Moreover, Maoism could be reintroduced in China, where the neo-Maoists say that the CPC have betrayed the ideals of Mao, and the CPC should be usurped.

etc.

JMTs

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 21 Sep 2010 00:58

^^^
Acharya-ji

That was my point (d) above. Introduction of religion requires
1. Strong backers (British Indian Government & Missionaries, Islamic invaders)
2. Complacent elite or subversion of the elite (Constantine, Ranjit Singh's son)

Even under these conditions, it takes a minimum of 2 generations. The half converts to raise their kids as full converts. The full converts, raising their kids who in turn forget history (that their grandparents were half converts). That is about ~60 years.