US and PRC relationship & India

[ramana]

Well read this!

Nightwatch 15 Oct 2010

LINK

China-US-Southeast Asia: (Long item alert!)
In an interview with the Zhongguo Xinwen She, Senior Colonel Wang Xinjun, research fellow from the Department of War Theory and Strategic Research under the Academy of Military Science, presented an update presentation of China's self-image and how it wants to be seen: as the equal of the US in major fields of international activity.

Wang wrote that while observing the negative side of China-US relations, one should also be aware of the positive factors that would give impetus to the development of China-US military ties. For example, China and the United States had common interests in a number of major fields, including the international anti-terror campaign, proliferation prevention of weapons of mass destruction, and international peace-keeping efforts; and bilateral ties of cooperation are of critical importance to maintaining peace and stability in the region and the world at large.

"In the face of subtle changes in the current and future international order because of China's rapid development, the United States is currently redefining China's role and its relations with China, and China-US relations are expected to enter a relatively difficult 'period of adjustment' and 'period of adaption' in days to come," Wang Xinjun said.

Wang told the interviewer, "Being the two most important countries in the world (emphasis added),both China and the United States have the responsibility and obligation to avoid drastic ups and downs or direct confrontation in bilateral relations, and should make an effort to facilitate a stable and healthy development in bilateral relations. During the current difficult period in China-US relations, the strategic circles of both sides in particular should exercise extreme caution."
Wang then cited principles of bilateral cooperation, reproduced below:

"Firstly, the two countries should respect each other's concerns….The two countries should act cautiously in their handling of each other's core interests and other sensitive issues."

"Secondly, the two countries should step up high-level exchanges and dialogues, with a view to enhancing understanding and minimizing misunderstanding and misjudgment. Facing China's rapid growth, some politicians in the United States are calling for containing China's rise by force. This shows that it is necessary for both sides to step up contacts, enhance understanding, and expand consensus."

"Third, in the course of promoting bilateral relations, both sides should gradually abandon the old alliance ties that are directed against a third party (emphasis added). It is an outdated tradition in international politics to form strategic alliances against a third party, and such a tradition is not in keeping with the realistic trend of global international politics. Defining China as a rival will do no good to peace and development in the region or the world at large."

"Fourth, the two sides should act in line with the principle of facilitating a mutually beneficial and win-win development, and strive to expand cooperation on an equal footing in fields of common interests. China and the United States are currently facing, and will continue to face in the future, many common challenges; and will only be able to cope with these challenges through sincere cooperation with each other."

"Fifth, the two sides should abandon the practice of threatening each other with the use of force on the slightest provocation. In contemporary times, it is an extremely stupid idea, and an expression of poor wisdom and strategic capability, to suggest that problems between China and the United States should be resolved by force."

Wang Xinjun concluded, "The contemporary environment of international politics, security, economy, and science and technology has provided a broad platform for peaceful competition between China and the United States. The real big competition between Chinese and American politics and between the two peoples is to demonstrate wisdom, creativity, magnanimity, and perseverance when facing difficulties and conflicts."

Comment: The news journal is an official government publication. Its primary audience apparently is overseas Chinese. The fact of a commentary on the Chinese-US exchanges at the Hanoi defense ministers' meeting attests to their importance. The commentary updates how China's leaders see their country and want others to perceive it as well.

Two points stand out from the interview. First is the writer and those he represents expect turbulence to continue in what he calls a complex" relationship. In communist cant, "complex" always means unpredictable and prone to stress that could become violent.

Second is the presentation of China as an equal competitor with the US in five areas: international politics, security, economics, science and technology. The commentary also posits that China is the partner of the US in fields off common interest.

It is not clear when this characterization of China began, but it is a departure from earlier descriptions of China as a "rising power" and not a threat to anyone. This overall characterization is so incongruent with reality as to suggest ethno-centric cheerleading. But it is the new look of China for the worldwide Chinese audience.

The message is that China is the US equal, but not a rival. That would seem to mark the end of the "rising power" language. Of course, Japan, Russia and other states might have a different point of view.

Note: NightWatch recognizes that it is misleading to write about China as if there were one viewpoint in a leadership structure as complex as that in Beijing. Nevertheless, the Chinese have mechanisms for summarizing and communicating consensus national policy. This publication is one of those.

[ramana]

Three related x-posts....

First post...

quote="Acharya"
--------------------
quote="RajeshA"
O but America fights others wars all the time. When they got rid of Saddam in Iraq, the Americans did the fighting for the Iranians, and the Kurds. /quote
------------------------------

Iraq was supported by US for a long time against Iran. They had US trained chemical experts, US quipments, US trained mil people etc which needed to be destroyed.

quote

When Americans got rid of the Taliban, they again did the fighting for Iranians. They also drew away the jihadis from India (many would contest this, but then again more were produced). The Chinese had a windfall, because all attention was drawn away and they could rise unimpeded. The Pakistanis made a fortune and avoided bankruptcy. All the Stans are making money from America. /quote

To avoid fall of Pakistan and total failure of Pakistan they had to intervene. They had to change their previous policy - fake policy of not supporting Pakistan and also change the policy of Pakistan towards Taliban. Taliban is a social engineering project of US military. US has long term goals in Central asia and the book "Grand Chess Board" should give info how serious they are. The location is too important for US to have anybody else control it.

http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

On hind sight the violent activities of Taliban towards Afgh and their actions against non muslims and others was meant to invoke deep reaction in the world against Taliban and support any military intervention in Afghanistan.


Instead of what Nalpat writes here India should let PRC take over the Central Asian landmass.

Its the constant tussle in Asia that lets Europe dominate world affairs since Darius times. Even later the Ottomons and Safavids (in 16th century) exhausted themselves in mutual fights leading the West to rise.

Second post....

Instead of what Nalpat writes here India should let PRC take over the Central Asian landmass.

Its the constant tussle in Asia that lets Europe dominate world affairs since Darius times. Even later the Ottomons and Safavids (in 16th century) exhausted themselves in mutual fights leading the West to rise.

In case the motive for allowing PRC to take over the Central Asian landmass is to give PRC the uncontested domination over Asia, so that the European power can be eclipsed, then I think it is a big price to pay.

In case the motive is to get PRC into a power struggle in Central Asia with the resident powers in Asia - political Islam, Russia, USA or India, then I think it will play out a lot differently.

• Russia - At the moment their strategic partnership is holding. China has shown it can intrude into Russian backyard economically in a big way - through Oil & Gas pipelines and Russia cannot do much about it. Secondly Russia has mutated into an oligarchy, which is happy with selling Oil & Gas and other minerals & raw materials to China, and to some extent defense equipment also. They get to make a fat profit and the Russian State can use the money to prop up its image as an equal of USA. Moreover the Chinese have influence in the Russian establishment. So it seems if Chinese increase their sway in Central Asia, it would not be contested in any big way by Russia. It also depends on Russian-American entente.
• India - India is boxed in in the Indian Subcontinent. Through various strategies of using proxies like Pakistan, having an intimidating missile arsenal in Tibet pointed at India, gaining influence in the Indian political class, moving in in a big way in Myanmar, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, China seems to have constrained India's strategic freedom in the Central Asian landmass. Also India has no land access to Central Asia at the moment.
• USA - USA presence in Central Asia makes USA only weaker, not stronger. China can wait for USA to leave the region out of its own volition. The hunch is the Afghan Taliban are being supported by Pakistan but Chinese have their hand in the game and are behind this policy of bleeding USA a 100%. It is questionable how long USA can stay.
• Ummah - The Chinese have several bonds with the Islamic World.
  1. Pakistan - The Chinese influence over Potohar is immense. Han-Pakjabi Alliance is perhaps China's strongest cards. With this alliance, China has been able to come closer to USA, China has been able to neutralize its biggest challenge in Asia - India, China has also used Pakistani good offices to curry favor with other Muslim countries like Maldives, Bangladesh, Turkey, etc.. An alliance with Pakjab has meant that China need not fear the Islamists to trouble China in Xinjiang. Pakistan is China's trump card, and long after America has dumped Pakistan, China would continue to stand by it.
  2. Anti-Americanism - The wide-spread Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has meant that the Muslims, who find themselves at the receiving end of American power, have welcomed the rise of China whole-heartedly. Islam has always feared the ideological threat arising from the Occident, and with the relative weakening of Europe & America, the Islamists can hope for more freedom in pushing through their agenda. In fact the Muslims see the Chinese as friends-in-arms as far as America is concerned.
  3. Similarity - The Chinese do not indulge themselves in moral grand-standing. They pose no ideological challenge to Islam. Since the retreat of Maoism-Communism in China, the challenge has faded away. In fact many of their methods are similar. So the Muslims feel comfortable dealing with the Chinese. The Chinese have no Human-Rights agenda and hence all form of dictators in the Islamic World have also no inhibitions dealing with the Chinese.
  4. Supplier-Consumer Relationship - The Muslim countries have virtually zero scientific research & development. I will go so far as to say, they don't have the aptitude for science. So the Muslim countries are happy to trade their Oil & Gas with the Chinese with no questions asked. The Central Asian dictators, Sudan, Iran, etc all have plenty of Oil & Gas and in China they have a market with enough money to spend.

Also the Chinese do not see the need to move into Central Asia militarily. They are getting all they want from Central Asia in the current constellation. In fact they are getting more, than what they would get through occupation. So I don't think PRC would fall into that trap.

Third post....

So what you are saying is PRC is becoming the dominant power in Central Asia anyway. And recall the "Grand Chessboard"* premise that no major power should be allowed in Eurasia as that will challenge the Europe and the West i.e the leader US itself.

China is rising and on its way up. This is a result of over hundred and fifty years of interaction with Colonial Europe and newly emergent USA from 1840s. The USA has always seen China as its munna. Even when it was weak, it adovcated the "Open Door" policy in China to ensure it was not shut out by the Colonial Europe. It was the US that decided to pull the plug on Koumintang to allow Mao to consolidate China under Communist role. In the past 150 years since then Colonial Europe has shed its colonies and left the space for US. During and after Cold War US resumed its interests with PRC to defeat the new challenge to the West (Soviet Union) and now after the financial meltdown its a duopoly working at cross purposes at times when the issues are bilateral and together when the issues are percieved to be in their interests.

Its all the better that India stands aside and let the rise happen to its max extent. Let China expand into its periphery. The rise will break the duopoly which is harming India. Also its better the rise is diverted to areas that are not inside India. The rise will go on till the demographic trend changes in China and improves for India.

Nothing says that India should consolidate itself and strengthen the idea of India. India should be single minded in cosloidating the idea of India and do its utmost to squash challenges to the idea of India.

* Read Zbig's book linked above or at minimum the synopsis.

[svinayak]

Instead of what Nalpat writes here India should let PRC take over the Central Asian landmass.

Its the constant tussle in Asia that lets Europe dominate world affairs since Darius times. Even later the Ottomons and Safavids (in 16th century) exhausted themselves in mutual fights leading the West to rise.

India should let PRC take over the Central Asian landmass.


[*] USA - USA presence in Central Asia makes USA only weaker, not stronger. China can wait for USA to leave the region out of its own volition. The hunch is the Afghan Taliban are being supported by Pakistan but Chinese have their hand in the game and are behind this policy of bleeding USA a 100%.
Its all the better that India stands aside and let the rise happen to its max extent. Let China expand into its periphery. The rise will break the duopoly which is harming India. Also its better the rise is diverted to areas that are not inside India. The rise will go on till the demographic trend changes in China and improves for India.

Nothing says that India should consolidate itself and strengthen the idea of India. India should be single minded in cosloidating the idea of India and do its utmost to squash challenges to the idea of India.

* Read Zbig's book linked above or at minimum the synopsis.

Few days back I had a talk with few people. They suggested that India and China take over the central asia including Pakistan! I had indicated that India has a steep price to engage in Pakistan and nothing less than the head of Pakistan will satisfy it.
US is feeling the fatigue and also since the war costs is getting out of control the new thinking is coming up.
It is now the stability of the world which is focus point.
More details to individual members later.

Check out the latest Joe morning show. with Condi Rice yesterday

[ramana]

MSNBC Morning Joe show video:

With Condi Rice

[svinayak]

MSNBC Morning Joe show video:

With Condi Rice

Check the last part with Erin Burnett from the Wall St
She says that US China G2 is going to keep the dollar value stable and provide stability.
Very interesting strategy and they need false anti China front to keep everybody diverted.

[abhishek_sharma]

This Week at War: China Backs Down for Now

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... wn_for_now

[Jarita]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm

China map lays claim to Americas

[ramana]

Next stop the moon.

[ramana]

NVS at Newsinsight.net

The Obama bargain
To counter emerging Pakistani and Chinese threats, India must make the most of the US president's November state visit, says N.V.Subramanian.

20 October 2010: Threats to India from both the Pakistani and Chinese fronts are likely to increase following Barack Obama's November state visit which is why it is advisable to keep expectations low on the US president's tour of the country so that it can more easily be declared a success. The explanation for this is as follows.

Barack Obama is an elected US president but he has a bureaucratic mindset for all his rhetorical flourishes. He sees no further potential for Indo-US relations if it comes at continuing costs to the American economy and he is also deeply wedded to Democratic Party and non-proliferation ideologies to continue to condone India's status as one of the NPT outlier states.

Consequently, there will be very little give on the American side when Obama comes visiting. For any small concession that the US makes, India would be expected to concede greatly, on defence equipment sales, for example, or UNSC veto power, or nuclear trade, which the Manmohan Singh government cannot afford to risk accepting.

With the previous George W.Bush administration, it was different. There are no two opinions that Bush was a bold, if often unwise, president. Obama is risk-averse. With Bush, Manmohan Singh could go out on a limb to save the nuclear deal, threatening to resign if the Congress party did not back him. Obama does not, and should not, merit similar derring-do, although there is nothing at stake quite like the nuclear deal.

Which is why it would be prudent and sensible to permit symbolism, if it is unavoidable, to overtake substance during president Obama's trip. The unwillingness or inability of Obama to make concessions to India should be taken in stride but his visit itself should be capitalized upon for what it is worth. The reason for this is mentioned in the first paragraph, which is the growing near-term threat to India both from Pakistan and China.

India's apprehension of a two-front war simultaneously with Pakistan and China is something the Indian military has strategized on for a time. But the threats this writer articulates in this piece are more currently located in time, and pertain to specific situations obtaining in both Pakistan and China.

Pakistan is confronted with an existential threat as never before. The emphasis of its military-led dictatorial/ political classes would increasingly veer to prosecuting hostilities with India (limited, under a nuclear overhang, targeting Kashmir, either to possess it or to return international attention to it: Kargil II) to divert attention from grave internal problems.

The impending exit of the US from Afghanistan and the return to power of the Taliban there staunch Pakistani fears of an Indian threat to its western flanks. But the victory of jihadi nationalism in Afghanistan would also incentivize Pakistan's military and militarized ruling classes to attempt another Kashmir "adventure" with India. With India's relations with Obama's US not as close as they were under Bush (although that did not prevent 26/11), Pakistan would be desperate to attempt renewed hostilities (commencing with the progressive breakdown of cross-border ceasefire) to turn away attention from its existential angst.

A willing partner in this Pakistani exercise, covertly or overtly, would be China, whose fiction of a "peaceful rise" has been rudely rocked by the dramatic Nobel Peace award to the Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo. In the coming weeks and months, Liu may become a rallying point for a new pro-democracy movement in China, whose chances of success, however, presently appear slim.

China's totalitarian rulers have a potent tool of nationalism to preserve and protect their power, which they have now and again directed against Japan and the US, and which they will employ generally against the West to counter the effect of the Liu Nobel. But hard Han nationalism may also be deployed against India, which through the Chinese prism may appear a stand-alone soft state implicated, according to China, in the decades' old Tibetan unrest. China's internal insecurities arising from Liu and Pakistan's existential crisis may fuse to form a major threat against India, which would magnify if the Barack Obama visit signals any manner of plateauing out or drift in Indo-US ties.

Therefore, care must be taken all around, including by strategic analysts (which encompasses this writer as well), not either to hype Obama's visit or to trash it. Since Indo-US relations were first reinvigorated by A.B.Vajpayee and Bill Clinton, there has been considerable positive build-up, and it is unreasonable to expect the same pace to maintain through successive administrations. It is significant that Barack Obama attaches so much symbolic value to relations with India, and India must return the sentiment while safeguarding national interests.

It is part of national interest to keep close ties with the United States even while being watchful of China and the China-Pakistan nexus. Russia seems to be solidifying relations with China which should concern India and make all the more important that existing good relations especially with the US are kept intact and the boat held steady. If the likely emerging dark situation post the Barack Obama visit is considered, it becomes imperative for India to make the most of the US presidential tour next month.

.....

I disagree. If the visit is damp squib then it should be declared so. If internal compulsions force PRC and TSP to suicide in hands of India so be it. If this is what 2008 leads to then so be it.

[Manishw]

^ If the visit is a failure it should be called so loud and clear, no need to go into unnecessary semantics which always lead to making fools of ourselves.As for Russia, we would do better to have closer ties with it rather than seek solace in the untrustworthy Americans.

[RajeshA]

I disagree. If the visit is damp squib then it should be declared so. If internal compulsions force PRC and TSP to suicide in hands of India so be it. If this is what 2008 leads to then so be it.

I think GoI should welcome him warmly and give him respect as an American President deserves. However the Indian media should be scathing of him, and call him by what he really is - a terrorist financier!

[naren]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm

China map lays claim to Americas

Good for India, the Chicoms are also pakis. Now its everyone's collective problem to deal with "it".

Btw, WTF does it matter if Admiral Hung Ze landed on Americas before Columbus or not ? Its not like "finders keepers". It was already inhabited by the native Americans.

[Christopher Sidor]

Well said Manishw

[Pratyush]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm

China map lays claim to Americas

Thank heavens, it has not claimed my Pakistan with my musharraf planted on it.

[RajeshA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm

China map lays claim to Americas

Thank heavens, it has not claimed my Pakistan with my musharraf planted on it.

Then you haven't being paying attention to the news. That too is claimed by China!

[Pratyush]

I deserve this then for sleeping like Kumbhkaran

[chandrabhan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm

China map lays claim to Americas

I see lot of similarities between the Islamists and the Chicoms. Few years back, I had a small discussion with a Pakistani Female in London who was arguing that 'Camera' was invented by the Arabs and there is a word called 'Qoomra' in Arabic. Since I don't have too much knowledge about Arabic and I did not want to hear her go on, I did not argue.

She did not stop and kept on rattling that North America was a muslimland once upon a time and there are signs of Muslim/Arab culture spread everywhere in America.. Including the names of places.

Well , bakis have competition now. May they can collaborate with their Cheeni, Tallel than mountains and deepel than ocean fliends and devide north and south.

[Prem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm

China map lays claim to Americas

Good for India, the Chicoms are also pakis. Now its everyone's collective problem to deal with "it".

Btw, WTF does it matter if Admiral Hung Ze landed on Americas before Columbus or not ? Its not like "finders keepers". It was already inhabited by the native Americans.

You mean "Indians".

[ramana]

Nightwatch 22 OCt 2010

US-China-India: President Obama will visit India between 6 and 9 November. The forthcoming trip has generated significant unease in China about US strategy in Asia.

Since Thursday, a half dozen or more Chinese newspapers and strategists have complained about the US relationship with India. A National Defense University official wrote, "India's goals of becoming a global power cannot be realized by just following the US. This writer accused the US of "building a strategic fence" with Japan and South Korea as the backbone and a carapace of India, Vietnam and other nations having territorial disputes with China.

This official wrote, "India's politicians should be aware that as the two weaker sides of a triangular relationship, it is very important for India and China to maintain stability to prevent the US from profiting from their disputes….The US fence around China is weak but could become an iron wall if China makes strategic mistakes."

Earlier, a Chinese air force colonel wrote about a crescent ring encircling China from Japan to Afghanistan. A professor at Beijing University's School of International Studies said, "If you look around Asia and see what the US is doing, it is not surprising and difficult to understand America's needs in South Asia."

A Fudan University analyst wrote in the China Daily that India and China are made for each other but must guard against western elements. "Some Indian media raised a hue and cry over so-called 'border invasion' by China last year and the recent suspension of bilateral military exchanges,'' said the commentary."Some Western countries and media are trying to use this to drive a wedge between the two neighbors."

Comment: These two ancient cultures have had no significant interaction until modern times. But for colonial era land disputes, they are not natural enemies. However, their aspirations for world power stature have converted them into at least strategic competitors, sometime rivals and potential enemies.

China's rise to great power stature impedes India's dominance in South Asia. China has developed proxies or allies on every Indian border, which undercuts the credibility of its complaints about encirclement. China has spurred India to look to its strategic space in South Asia and to increase security cooperation with East Asia powers with which it has never had significant interaction … before the rise of China.

It is curious that Chinese international affairs commentators evince so much insecurity, for a country that considers itself the equal in many areas of the United States and has become so aggressive in asserting its right to be the leader of Asia.

A few comments from me,;

_ The big think is that just as Bush Admin removed the nuke reactor related sanctions even though they were no too keen to have commerce in nuke reactor goods, the Obama Admn could remove the mil technology sanction on India. The tug is between adding conditionalities on India just as Hyde Act added a whole lot of conditionalities. If they are too onerous then India might go elsewhere as the mil tech sanctions are not governed by NSG type regimes.
- India never sought military dominance. India's empire is of the mind and trade. Its the military pressures built up on India in the post Colonial period that spur the drive for military upgradation.
- By India focusing on the economy and the isolation form golbal financial meltdown has restored some modicum of economic strength.

- Once the fake seculars also ie off or get marginalized due to the dynamic of truth prevailing or satyameva jayate, the share in mind space will also come back. I could take a decade or two for this to happen due to generational dynamics.

[ramana]

To explain PRC's angst when US approaches India we need to understand s a few things about China's psyche.

China was a no man's land for the Western colonial powers during the 19th Century. It was the US that proclaimed the Open Door policy which ensured that China is not taken over by one European power. SO the US attitude towards China is that its original munna since then. There is vast literature on this and wiki or google can help find more. In fact US(Gen Marshall) stopped military aid to Chiang Kai Shek to ensure the one power can consolidate the new China.

During the 70 rapprochement looks like US promised to help the rise of China for their help in the Cold War against FSU just as Bush Admin made such statements openly with respect to India.

During the 90s and 2000 decades one sees that PRC accedes or issues statements only after the US. There is anecdotal record of the concert between the US and PRC in many geopolitical issues.
And TSP became the PRC munna along the way.

Now the duo pf TSP and PRC are getting too big for US to manage without a war or destruction.

This duo is the old Huntington nightmare of clash of civilizations. In my view they really are two sides of the same Western/Christian nemesis of heresies outside the faith. Please think it over calmly for there is lot distilled in this one line.One Wahabi Sunni power is the pre-modern form and Communist PRC is the modern form. Modern is sense of Western philosophy and not adhunik.

Coming back to PRC, hey feel that the promise will be unfulfilled when the US approaches India and get shrill in their denouncement. This is warning cry to US to back off.
This dynamic explains the fact that the rise of PRC is only with the US pushing it.

Its like the barren elder wife shrieking if the husband looks for greener pastures.

[svinayak]

Find out why do the Chinese complain if this kind of engagement is going on with US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80 ... c_Dialogue

U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) (simplified Chinese: 中美战略与经济对话; traditional Chinese: 中美戰略與經濟對話; pinyin: Zhōng Měi zhànlüè yǔ jīngjì duìhuà) is a high-level dialogue for the United States and China to discuss a wide range of bilateral, regional and global political, strategic, security, and economic issues between both countries. The establishment of the S&ED was announced on April 1, 2009 by U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao. The upgraded mechanism replaced the former Senior Dialogue and Strategic Economic Dialogue started under the George W. Bush administration. The format is such that high-level representatives of both countries and their delegations will meet annually at capitals alternating between the two countries.[1][2]

The S&ED has both a "Strategic Track" and an "Economic Track". U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo co-chair the "Strategic Track". U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan co-chair the "Economic Track".


History

The creation of the S&ED was announced on April 1, 2009 in London at the G-20 summit by President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao during their first meeting.[3] The upgraded mechanism replaced the former Senior Dialogue and Strategic Economic Dialogue started under the George W. Bush administration. High-level representatives of both countries and their delegations meet annually at capitals alternating between the two countries. The first meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on July 27–28, 2009.
It has been suggested by analysts and media that the S&ED constitutes an important part of the G-2 relationship between the United States and China.[4][5][6][7] Experts say that it can promote political trust, constructive engagement, and collaboration between the two countries.[8]
[edit]Purpose

The S&ED is an ongoing and intensive mechanism for addressing the challenges and opportunities that the United States and China face on a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global areas of immediate and long-term strategic and economic interest. Both President Barack Obama of the U.S. and President Hu Jintao of China have placed the S&ED at the center of the bilateral relationship and are committed to delivering concrete, meaningful, and sustained progress over time on long-term strategic and economic objectives through the S&ED. The 2009 Dialogue will provide an opportunity to establish a framework for those discussions moving forward.[9]
[edit]Structure

The S&ED is organized around a high-level, cross-cutting structure that addresses the geopolitical nature of mutual concerns in strategic and economic discussions. The S&ED provides a forum for ongoing and productive bilateral engagement between U.S. and Chinese officials with diverse responsibilities for both economic and strategic issues. The structure of the S&ED allows for a plenary session to discuss issues of cross-cutting strategic and economic importance, while maintaining distinct strategic and economic tracks. Each respective track will involve focused discussions on issues of mutual immediate and long-term strategic or economic interest. The S&ED will meet annually to facilitate robust engagement and progress between dialogues through coordination with existing bilateral dialogues and working-level interactions.[9]
[edit]Participants

The S&ED brings together senior leadership representing the U.S. and Chinese governments. Special representatives are appointed by Presidents of both countries. Various other U.S. Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials and heads of Chinese ministries, bureaus and commissions will participate in the Dialogue depending on the issues being discussed.

[svinayak]

Nightwatch 22 OCt 2010

China's rise to great power stature impedes India's dominance in South Asia. China has developed proxies or allies on every Indian border, which undercuts the credibility of its complaints about encirclement . China has spurred India to look to its strategic space in South Asia and to increase security cooperation with East Asia powers with which it has never had significant interaction … before the rise of China.

There are few problems with this kind of view.
This is western world view of China rise, and global economic trends which has been created to result in clash with the other giant in Asia.
This modern chinese view about India and its culture is a derivative of the British narrative about India from the colonial days.

[naren]

During the 70 rapprochement looks like US promised to help the rise of China for their help in the Cold War against FSU just as Bush Admin made such statements openly with respect to India.

It was the liberation of Bangladesh which was the turning point. PRC was propped up to stick it to both India and FSU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities

Beginning with the start of Operation Searchlight on 25 March 1971 and continuing throughout the Bangladesh Liberation War, there were widespread violations of human rights in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) perpetrated by the Pakistan Army with support from local political and religious militias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Ameri ... prochement

In July 1971 Henry Kissinger, while on a trip to Pakistan, feigned illness and did not appear in public for a day. He was actually on a top-secret mission to Beijing to open relations with the government of the PRC. On July 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon revealed the mission to the world and that he had been invited to visit the PRC and that he had accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

The war effectively came to an end after the Eastern Command of the Pakistani Armed Forces signed the Instrument of Surrender, the first and perhaps the only public surrender till date [11] [12], on December 16, 1971 following which East Pakistan seceded as the independent state of Bangladesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Ameri ... prochement

From February 21 to February 28, 1972, President Nixon traveled to Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai.

Isnt it ironical "the leader of the free world" would visit Communist China at the height of Cultural Revolution where people were dying in the order of millions ! (widely varying figures, the worst I've seen is about 100 million).

Its like the barren elder wife shrieking if the husband looks for greener pastures.

Recommended "Raise the Red Lantern". Its set in early 20th century China. An old landlord would marry a young girl (Gong Li). He already has three wives - one too old and going Krishna/Rama. Second one very sweet talking but stabs in the back. Third one is argumentative, has secret affair, but not as bad as the second one. Fourth one - Gong Li - tries to adapt to this new environment. And then there's also the maid girl who sleeps with the landlord in the hope of becoming the fourth, but Gong Li stole her place.

Landlord - US
1st wife - UK
2nd - PRC
3rd - ???
4th - India
maid girl - Pakistan

[Gerard]

Kapil Komireddi in the UK Guardian
The west must stand up to China

[Hari Seldon]

Kapil Komireddi in the UK Guardian
The west must stand up to China

+1 article.
Having read sri Komireddi's thoughts on TSP as well, I'd heartily hail the man as an honorary BRFite. Almost thinks like so many of us, broadly speaking, and writes much better than most of us, only. (Yup, but then, BRFites ain't getting paid to write, right?)

[sanjaykumar]

The comments are telling.

Half pointing out India's poverty (likely the democracy loving Pakis but who'd have thought they read, at least the Guardian).

Also the thought processing ability of a lot of westerners is as follows: because they are a lot of westerners there China must be good. Yeah just as westerners in the Gulf. Basically unemployable riff-raff who need need to bank on the fawning Chinese and Arabs for jobs.

China- from cannibalism to world domination in two generations. Impressive in its way.

[Jarita]

During the 70 rapprochement looks like US promised to help the rise of China for their help in the Cold War against FSU just as Bush Admin made such statements openly with respect to India.

It was the liberation of Bangladesh which was the turning point. PRC was propped up to stick it to both India and FSU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities

Beginning with the start of Operation Searchlight on 25 March 1971 and continuing throughout the Bangladesh Liberation War, there were widespread violations of human rights in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) perpetrated by the Pakistan Army with support from local political and religious militias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Ameri ... prochement

In July 1971 Henry Kissinger, while on a trip to Pakistan, feigned illness and did not appear in public for a day. He was actually on a top-secret mission to Beijing to open relations with the government of the PRC. On July 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon revealed the mission to the world and that he had been invited to visit the PRC and that he had accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

The war effectively came to an end after the Eastern Command of the Pakistani Armed Forces signed the Instrument of Surrender, the first and perhaps the only public surrender till date [11] [12], on December 16, 1971 following which East Pakistan seceded as the independent state of Bangladesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Ameri ... prochement

From February 21 to February 28, 1972, President Nixon traveled to Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai.

Isnt it ironical "the leader of the free world" would visit Communist China at the height of Cultural Revolution where people were dying in the order of millions ! (widely varying figures, the worst I've seen is about 100 million).

Its like the barren elder wife shrieking if the husband looks for greener pastures.

Recommended "Raise the Red Lantern". Its set in early 20th century China. An old landlord would marry a young girl (Gong Li). He already has three wives - one too old and going Krishna/Rama. Second one very sweet talking but stabs in the back. Third one is argumentative, has secret affair, but not as bad as the second one. Fourth one - Gong Li - tries to adapt to this new environment. And then there's also the maid girl who sleeps with the landlord in the hope of becoming the fourth, but Gong Li stole her place.

Landlord - US
1st wife - UK
2nd - PRC
3rd - ???
4th - India
maid girl - Pakistan

Uggghhh - the third one is killed by the landlord and Gong li goes mad while the maid commits suicide. The second one gains power even though she is ugly. She turns out to be the most connivng of the lot.

I'll pass on the analogy

[svinayak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Ameri ... prochement

In July 1971 Henry Kissinger, while on a trip to Pakistan, feigned illness and did not appear in public for a day. He was actually on a top-secret mission to Beijing to open relations with the government of the PRC. On July 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon revealed the mission to the world and that he had been invited to visit the PRC and that he had accepted.

There are several problems with this narration.
HK in his book - "My White House Years" says that US was in contact with the PRC Chicoms from the late 60s and they met the Chicom officials in UN. The Sino Soviet wars in 1969 gave them break to connect with the Chicoms.

[Arjun]

Kapil Komireddi in the UK Guardian
The west must stand up to China

+1 article.
Having read sri Komireddi's thoughts on TSP as well, I'd heartily hail the man as an honorary BRFite. Almost thinks like so many of us, broadly speaking, and writes much better than most of us, only. (Yup, but then, BRFites ain't getting paid to write, right?)

Doubt it...maybe honorary BRFite as far as external relations go. Have you read any of his articles on events within India?

[naren]

There are several problems with this narration.
HK in his book - "My White House Years" says that US was in contact with the PRC Chicoms from the late 60s and they met the Chicom officials in UN. The Sino Soviet wars in 1969 gave them break to connect with the Chicoms.

CIA was supporting the Tibetan insurgents till Nixonullah made the trip, after which the operations were totally abandoned. So I'd say that Bangladesh was the turning point and not '69. It is possible that between '62, after Sino India war and '72, there wasn't a clear cut policy. US might have evaluated the possibility of propping up PRC, but not gone ahead with it.


*added*

not sure how legit this site is.
A REVIEW OF KENNETH J. CONBOY AND JAMES MORRISON'S "THE CIA'S SECRET WAR IN TIBET"

The failure of the rebellion, however, did not bring an end to American efforts to use Tibet as an active front against the PRC. In the 1960s, the CIA continued training Tibetan agents for intelligence and sabotage operations in Tibet and it set up a base for a guerrilla unit in the remote Nepalese kingdom of Mustang. After China's border war with India in 1962, the Agency worked closely with Indian intelligence services in training and supplying agents in Tibet and in creating a special forces unit of Tibetan refugees that was eventually called the Special Frontier Force. The CIA's Tibetan operations continued until the 1970s when strains in U.S.-Indian relations, the improvement of U.S. diplomatic ties with the PRC, and the Nepalese government's occupation of the Mustang base brought the Tibet program to an end.

(Aside, this was referenced in the movie "Dreaming Lhasa")

[svinayak]

There are several problems with this narration.
HK in his book - "My White House Years" says that US was in contact with the PRC Chicoms from the late 60s and they met the Chicom officials in UN. The Sino Soviet wars in 1969 gave them break to connect with the Chicoms.

CIA was supporting the Tibetan insurgents till Nixonullah made the trip, after which the operations were totally abandoned. So I'd say that Bangladesh was the turning point and not '69. It is possible that between '62, after Sino India war and '72, there wasn't a clear cut policy. US might have evaluated the possibility of propping up PRC, but not gone ahead with it.

They always have multiple side approach to large countries.
The Sino US contact has been going on since mid 1960s and it is in many archives and documents.

[abhishek_sharma]

Taking Harder Stance Toward China, Obama Lines Up Allies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world ... china.html

[ramana]

Here is oneliner to understand the new PRC.

"PRC has morphed into an allidragon!"

Everyone is fixated in thinking that its still the old benign dragon.

[TonyMontana]

Here is oneliner to understand the new PRC.

"PRC has morphed into an allidragon!"

Everyone is fixated in thinking that its still the old benign dragon.

Can a dragon truely be benign? A dragon by its nature is gonna ruffle some feathers around his roost.

[ramana]

I guess you dont know Chinese mythology. The concept of dragon by the Chinese is quite different from the one in West where Saints get to become one by slaying them. If you have time go see Mulan to get an understanding!

[Arihant]

I guess you dont know Chinese mythology. The concept of dragon by the Chinese is quite different from the one in West where Saints get to become one by slaying them. If you have time go see Mulan to get an understanding!

Interestingly, our very own Professor Tan Chung (ex-JNU) has argued that the Chinese dragon is nothing but our Nagaraja. This also borne out by the Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms (Soothill and Hodous).

[TonyMontana]

I guess you dont know Chinese mythology. The concept of dragon by the Chinese is quite different from the one in West where Saints get to become one by slaying them. If you have time go see Mulan to get an understanding!

I'm quite aware of the Chinese Dragon Mythos. But with all BRF's talk of lizard, fat chicken, etc, I assumed on BRF the word dragon was used in the European sense.

Interestingly, our very own Professor Tan Chung (ex-JNU) has argued that the Chinese dragon is nothing but our Nagaraja. This also borne out by the Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms (Soothill and Hodous).

This is one thing I never get about some posters. Time and time again, posters loves to point out all the cultural things China has learnt from India. I don't get it. Are we somehow inferior for taking ideas and making them our own? Or are you implying that Indian are more inventive to come up with the concept of the Nagaraja?

[Atri]

Interestingly, our very own Professor Tan Chung (ex-JNU) has argued that the Chinese dragon is nothing but our Nagaraja. This also borne out by the Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms (Soothill and Hodous).

This is one thing I never get about some posters. Time and time again, posters loves to point out all the cultural things China has learnt from India. I don't get it. Are we somehow inferior for taking ideas and making them our own? Or are you implying that Indian are more inventive to come up with the concept of the Nagaraja?

There has been considerable influence of concepts which happened to evolve in India on cultural and ideological sphere of China. There is nothing inferior about taking up certain ideological memes from some other place and adapt it to one's environment.

[RamaY]

^ Another aspect is

It shows apparent lack of creativity in the society. If they ancient China got its philosophy from India, it got Marxism from Germany, and now economic imperialism from America.

A wise student by now would have learned that only its philosophical teacher remained strong over millennium. Everything else met their inherent demise.

Unfortunately PRC failed to be a good student too.

[Cosmo_R]

Atri wrote: "There is nothing inferior about taking up certain ideological memes from some other place and adapt it to one's environment."

Isn't that called reverse engineering?

Sorry, could not resist