This post belongs here.
RD and Amit please continue here....
Rudradev wrote:amit wrote:
"Rudradev"
On this note one should consider Taiwan, the rival that has long been propped up by the West against the PRC. For decades, Taiwan's GDP and rate of growth towered over that of PRC, a differential that has never applied to Pakistan against India. The Taiwanese were also supplied by the West with the latest armaments, all directed against the PRC. Yet, the PRC never made compromises with respect to Taiwan, in order to catch up with Taiwan's GDP or develop economically in its own right. It stood up to the Western proxy, armed itself with enough capability to invade the island if necessary, and still continued with its own economic development in an unflagging manner.
I’m afraid this is an overtly simplistic assessment of China’s stand vis a vis Taiwan. China is very explicit on its claims on Taiwan and yet the Taiwanese armed forces have been armed by the US for decades and was definitely till recently far superior to the Chinese forces in terms of quality.
I suppose you mean "overly simplistic". Well, let's take a more detailed look at it then. The Taiwan Straits Crisis of 1995
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~john ... /ross3.pdf was precipitated when the US gave a visa to Lee Teng-Hui, a Taiwanese President who was seeking to maximize Taiwan's wiggle room by proposing a "two-state solution" to the One China policy that most countries in the world recognized at that point. No formal diplomatic relations existed between the US and Taiwan at that point, and none exist today, in recognition of the One China policy by Washington. In this context, Lee's visit to the US was deemed unacceptable by China as they interpreted it as US approval of Lee's stance.
Unquestionably Taiwan had a qualitatively better military than China at the time; and unquestionably they had a far stronger economy per capita. China's GDP in 1995 was barely half a trillion dollars...
less than half of what India's GDP is today, by the way.
Yet the Chinese did not waffle and make concessions in an attempt to win the US over, so that they could go on improving their economy at the cost of even a diplomatic point against Taiwan. They did not skirt the issue but raised it, and through a combination of coercive diplomacy and military intimidation, they got their way eventually. Lee did win re-election in Taiwan in 1996 but backed off on any drive to assert Taiwanese independence. He was persuaded to climb down by the US, which had come uncomfortably close to a confrontation with China on the subject. In a manner similar to Parakram, coercive diplomacy was used by the Chinese to pressure the US into reigning in their ally.
End result: China had its way on Taiwan, and Washington among other countries still endorses the One China policy with no changes. Lee Teng-Hui failed in his attempt to change the status quo. And China did not suffer one bit in terms of economic expansion, as a consequence of standing up for itself. Even though its GDP then was not even half of India's GDP now.
It’s only now that China has threatened overt economic sanctions against US entities which arm Taiwan. Before it’s typical reaction was a lot of bluster and military exercises and pointing more missiles against Taiwan etc. Nothing was directed against the US except for a lot of verbiage. Let’s not put Uncle Jiang on a pedestal for the sake of promoting one POV.
Ironically, it is the overt economic sanctions threatened by a 4-trillion-dollar China today that have not been effective. The arms sales by the US to Taiwan is still on the cards as far as I know. There are good reasons for this.
No matter how strong China's GDP may be today, it still doesn't have the clout to get its way merely by trying to arm-wrestle the US on purely
economic terms. The business community in the US is unlikely to forego the very lucrative Taiwanese arms market. Yes American business has interests in China, but it has interests in Taiwan as well.
And most importantly, the US knows that China is bluffing. In any exchange of retaliatory sanctions and reciprocal denial of export markets, China will be the loser *by far*, even with its $4 trillion GDP.
Which puts paid to the canard that GDP alone is worth anything. Business leverage cuts both ways, because it creates an interdependency. If China can influence the American business lobby, the US can exert at least as much reciprocal influence on the Chinese business lobby. Only by a combination of leverages, including cooperation on Iran, military assertiveness in its near abroad, and selective nuclear proliferation in addition to economic strength, has China been able to influence US policy. There is no basis to say that they could have enjoyed as much influence on the strength of their economy alone.
By the way, nobody is "putting Jiang on a pedestal". That is a strawman you have erected to deflect attention from the canard you apparently want to perpetuate. The discussion of China is not to establish that its leaders are great people; but that it is perfectly possible to assert national interests, including security interests, without compromising on economic growth and development.
To insist that this is not possible, while Indians lose their lives to Pakistani terrorism, is the fraud being perpetrated by the MMS regime on the Indian people. Kindly do not attempt to divert attention from that by making the debate about Jiang's qualities as a leader.
Today we say: $1.3 trillion GDP isn't enough for us to stand up to Pakistan (let alone the US). It isn't enough for us to consolidate our strategic, diplomatic and security interests even in our own near abroad. Instead we must do exactly as the US says, and pursue peace with Pakistan at any cost, at least until 2015 or whenever we have a $4-$5 trillion GDP (as China has now).
Let's say we do this (at the incalculable price of sacrificing our national interest even within the confines of our own neighbourhood). Let's say we continue along the path MMS is taking now and wait to develop a $4-$5 trillion GDP.
When we have it, what then? Will we look at China's $10 trillion GDP and say "well, $4 or $5 trillion doesn't really cut it in terms of global influence. Let's just make more compromises and count on losing another six or seven thousand Indian lives to terrorism every year until we hit the $10 trillion mark"?
This makes no sense to me at all. India is not a corporation, not a cash cow with shareholders to answer to. India is a nation, a nation of people whose interests must be secured for generations to come. For all their ruthless corporatism the Chinese have never lost sight of the difference.
I’m sorry boss but either you did not understand my argument or you are twisting it.
I’m quite clear in my mind that we are at a level where we can swat the Pakistanis any time we want to provided the US and its friends don’t prop them up. However, the whole premise of my argument is how we can realistically build influence within the US so that it makes sense for pressure groups on Capitol Hill to drive a change in the US govt policy.
And ultimately the levers of US power is best manipulated via US business interests. In order to get them sufficiently interested we need a bigger economy so that the prize of economic cooperation with India is bigger and is worth letting the Pakis go.
I'm afraid this is where you are wrong. On two counts.
First, that the levers of power in the US are
*not* best manipulated by business interests alone. As a matter of fact, levers of influence based solely on business interest have a distinct limitation: they cut both ways. The more the US has invested in a business relationship with India, then the more India has invested in a business relationship with the US.
This could not have been more obvious when the high and mighty of India's InfoTech revolution, began to pressure the GOI to stand down against Pakistani terrorism on Parakram.
This double-edged nature of a relationship predicated solely on business, is in fact, the cornerstone of US grand strategy to obtain leverage over the rise of China. The more US debt China owns, the less likely China is to want to disrupt US interests or the US economy. The more Chinese businesses depend on export to the US market, the more vulnerable China is to restrictions on its access to that market. The greater China's trade surplus with respect to the US, the more concerned they will be about circumstances that may hand the US a pretext to default on its deficit.
And eventually,
in any wrestling match based on economics, the US is sure to win. No matter if we're a 4 or 5 trillion dollar economy like China is today, or even stronger than that, the US will always (into the foreseeable future) be in a class by itself in terms of economic strength. Ultimately no country can press its economic leverage with the US beyond a certain point where it ends up shooting itself in the foot.
So no, we are not going to achieve influence in the US based on economic strength alone. Economic strength has a certain role to play in achieving that influence, as a positive inducement. But it has to be balanced by other diplomatic, political and military imperatives as other positive and negative inducements. Under this MMS regime there is no chance of acquiring those any time soon.
The second point where you are wrong, is to imagine that a better economy alone will be enough to convince the US to "let the Pakis go". What do the Pakis offer the US economically? What they offer is something I hope that even MMS wouldn't be willing to give.
The truth is that while India continues to acquiesce tamely to US demands, and while India persists in subordinating its own priorities to US interests,
there is no incentive for the US to do take any of India's interests into consideration. We are already rolling over and giving up everything, so why should they do anything to please us?
If you go before the US with a constantly wagging tail, as Manmohan Singh has, you will be treated like a lapdog. Not as a partner, but as a slave.
This has been borne out in spades. We thought that by going along with US strategy in AfPak, our interests in Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal would be respected. The West has, in fact, spat in India's face on this account. What thanks did we get for signing the Sharm-el-Shaikh declaration, so effusively praised by Washington? S M Krishna was left totally in the dark with regard to American policy of negotiating with the Taliban. He made a fool of himself with public statements about "there are no good Taliban", even as the heads of all governments involved were about to assemble in London exactly for the purpose of negotiating with a "good Taliban".
Today things are even worse. K. Subrahmanyam is about as accurate a source on GOI "thinking" as we in the public domain can hope to hear from. In his article "What's Happening in Pakistan?"
http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/22/stories ... 991100.htm Subrahmanyam expresses that the GOI has underlying fears about Pakistan's new initiative to start arresting Taliban leaders. He says:
K_Subrahmanyam wrote: There are underlying worries over whether in exchange for cooperation in fighting the Afghan Taliban and the other terrorist groups Pakistan would have obtained U.S. and NATO promises to get their mediatory intervention on the Kashmir issue. Further concerns are, relying on the U.S. gratitude for action against some of the jehadi groups whether Pakistan may carry out more terroristic attacks on India and hope for the U.S. and NATO putting pressure on India not to retaliate. The Indian fears have very valid bases and the Indian agencies have to assess the consequences arising from the latest developments for India carefully and initiate steps for optimum preparedness to meet such contingent threats.
This just shows how much of a "partner" the US actually considers India. We take orders, but let alone being consulted on US strategic and diplomatic decisions, the Americans don't even bother to inform us about them!
So if we haven't been able to guarantee that the US and NATO will keep off Kashmir, and we haven't been able to guarantee that the US and NATO won't pressure us not to retaliate against Pakistani terrorist attacks on Indian citizens: what, exactly, has MMS' diplomatic strategy of doing whatever the US tells him been worth?
Meanwhile, even Pakistan, with its basketcase of an economy, has done an excellent job of manipulating the US to secure its interests in Afghanistan with a diverse array of inducements and subterfuges.
And we think that if we sit on our thumbs developing a $4 trillion economy, we will gain "influence" against Pakistan in Washington!
Now will it pan out after we hit US$4-US$5 trillion? I think it’s obvious that that’s not an immediate given. It will ultimately depend on the political leadership and whether they have the political acumen and skill to use this new found economic clout to India’s advantage. If we don’t have the right leadership even the world’s third or fourth largest economy would not help.
Exactly right. And that is the problem today. We have a $1.3 trillion dollar economy, which is in fact the world's fourth largest in GDP-PPP. But we cannot stand up to a Pakistan which is where? All thanks to the pathetic excuse for "leadership" residing in New Delhi.
The other point is at present even assuming we had a “braveheart” Nationalist government in power today, we/they wouldn’t have the wherewithal to sufficiently sway US interest groups.
Sorry, this is simply inaccurate.
Firstly, US interest groups were swayed not to impose all-out sanctions against India after the 1998 Pokhran tests by a nationalist government (even though leaders as diverse as Henry Hyde and Madeleine Allbright were baying for our blood, demanding that an example be made of us).
How strong was our economy then? Just a fraction of what it is now, but even so, business interests in the US prevailed upon the Clinton administration not to deny them a huge emerging market by imposing sanctions. So I'm sorry, but this whole business of $1.3 billion "doesn't cut it" is a crock of Paki dung... an excuse for the MMS regime's inability or unwillingness to stand up for India.
Secondly, US interest groups were swayed not to get involved in Kargil to Pakistan's benefit, despite the prevalence of cold-warriors and other Pakistan supporters in many areas of the US defense and diplomatic establishments.
And finally, US interest groups at the highest level did a 180 degree turn... from considering J&K an easy-access safety valve to divert Pakistani jihadi terrorism, to leaning on Pakistan for a cease-fire and a stop to infiltration in J&K. Thanks to coercive diplomacy by a nationalist government.
All this happened while we didn't even have a $1.3 trillion economy. So what gives?
Previous governments have exercised coercive diplomacy against Pakistan (and the US) without ending up in a confrontation, yet leading to very tangible national security benefits.
I’m sure you’re referring to Operation Parakram here as apart from that mobilization I don’t recall any other coercive actions from the NDA govt apart from heavy rhetoric. (Please note here that while the NDA govt pulled the nuclear trigger and deserve compliments for that, the ground work was done by the PVNR govt. This is the same as your point later about the ongoing nature of such projects. The NDA govt did not pull Pokharan out of its hat).
This is not the same as my point about the ongoing nature of such projects. The bomb project had been *finished* (was not "ongoing") by the time PVNR came to power. Yet PVNR did not test it. All said and done I don't blame him for this, given the dire economic straits we were in during the early part of his regime.
The NDA does not deserve credit for developing the bomb. The credit it deserves is for
testing the bomb, and taking responsibility for the political and economic consequences of such an act (totally unprecedented outside the P-5 nations).
You have highlighted the benefits which Parakram brought. And I personally think it was a good move on the part of the NDA govt.
But I’m sure you’d agree that even that didn’t prove to be a permanent solution. We may have got Musharraff browning his pants but despite that there were the Delhi and Ayodhya blasts after that, not to speak of Mumbai.
Boss, please tell me which country in the world today has managed to effect a "permanent solution" against the external sources of its international political problems?
No matter how high their "GDP"... have the Chinese managed to "permanently solve" Taiwan?
Have the Japanese or South Koreans managed to "permanently" solve problems even in their immediate neighbourhood, or could North Korea take out their dazzling economic centers in a mushroom cloud?
For that matter, the Americans, with the highest GDP of all by far... have they managed to ensure permanent, favorable solutions in even such dwarf nations as Iraq and Afghanistan? Despite "winning" the Cold War, have they permanently ensured that Russia will never have the capacity or the will to threaten them existentially again?
Outside of situations like Rwanda (where mass genocide is arguably quite a lasting conclusion)... "permanent" solutions do not exist in today's geopolitical landscape. They haven't since the end of Nazism: and that's because the cost is too great for any nation, no matter how powerful its economy, to bear.
The success of Parakram must not be measured in terms of some blue-sky demand that we "permanently" solve the Pakistan problem. That simply isn't realistic. The best option most players have is to incrementally nudge the status quo so that it is more and more in one's favour. You disrupt the existing equilibrium in such a way that when things re-settle, they are placed a little better for you than they were before. Even the US has realized this... from shock and awe, they are now adopting the less ambitious, more sensible tactics of doggedly going after achievable goals one by one.
Parakram certainly looks like a success compared to the track record of countries with trillions of dollars in GDP... such as the US, which has barely managed to slap a few band-aids on the mess in Iraq to cover its quick and silent retreat.
Also, the three terrorist incidents you mentioned: Delhi, Ayodhya, and Mumbai... were only perpetrated by the Pakis after the government that implemented Parakram was no longer in power. Some terrorist incidents did take place after Parakram during the NDA's tenure as well: Akshardham and the Mumbai train blasts come to mind. But there is no question that the number of incidents spiked after the UPA came to power.
So long term I don’t see how coercive diplomacy would/will work with the Pakis as long as we can’t wean away the Amercians.
I don't think we should be pursuing coercive diplomacy against Pakistan alone (it is true, they have so little to lose that coercive diplomacy has its limits with them).
Parakram for that matter wasn't targeted only at Pakistan. Its coercive diplomacy was equally aimed at the US. Had not Unkil browned his pants first, at the thought of his Afghan game plan going for a six, it would not have leaned on Pakistan to reverse its policy of J&K terrorism. Musharraf browning his pants was a side effect with more entertainment value than anything else.
It is to squeeze the US so that they guarantee our interests, economic and political and military, in exchange for our avoiding a confrontation.
Undoubtedly it’s basic baniya logic. But it’s also baniya logic that you need to get to the capability to be able to do that.
How do you propose that India does that? By playing a spoiler with Iran and
in Afghanistan? Do you think the US would be so scared of that they will back off from Pakistan? If wishes were horses…
Cognitive dissonance perhaps prohibits you from seeing this; but in fact, that is exactly what happened during Parakram. We threatened to play the spoiler in Afghanistan; the US backed off from its traditional nodding and winking at Paki terrorism, and made the Pakis do a 180 on infiltration into Kashmir.
Playing the spoiler with Iran and North Korea is one of China's primary sources of leverage against the US, and has been for a long time. Long before they had any $4 trillion economy, for sure. Yet they have that economy now, and they haven't mortgaged their national interest in pursuit of that economy... as the MMS regime is doing.
If the MMS government can guarantee the safety of the Indian people by internal security means alone, and without yielding any concessions to the Pakistanis, well and good. If it cannot guarantee the security of the Indian people while maintaining its "holding operation" then the "holding operation" has failed and must be replaced by a strategy that imposes retaliatory costs on those endangering the Indian people... no two ways about it.
I agree with you on this but the point is we really don’t know
yet whether the holding operation has failed or not. I don’t know how it was done or whether it is just good fortune but the fact remains that after 26/11 it was the first time since terror strikes started in India outside of J&K we’ve had more than a year without any incidents before the Pune blast.
I agree with you the IPL and Commonwealth Games are prime targets as would be the Hockey World Cup and the remaining two One-Dayers with South Africa. Now there’s two options before India. One is the easy way out. Take IPL overseas and cancel all the other events. Or tighten security as much as possible and hope for the best. Now tell me what is the better option?
Given that the MMS regime has decided to pursue its policy of pandering to Pakistan and the US despite the cost in Indian lives, I don't know what constitutes a "better option".
I would say that stopping talks with the Pakistanis, keeping our engines tuned for cold start during the IPL/CGW, and of course maintaining internal security to the best of our abilities is the best option MMS has left us with. But I honestly don't see him adopting it.
This is why it can take years for anything to happen. The nuclear submarine ATV program was begun by the NDA government in leasing INS Chakra from the Russians but has only borne fruit today. Missile research, LCA development, Arjun development all proceed at their own pace no matter who happens to be the government of the day. If any of these programs meet their milestones during a particular government's tenure, it does not necessarily mean that the government of the day should get any credit for it.
Of course, the government *can* if it wants, change things. The PM (along with his MOD and COAS) can take personal interest in accelerating defense acquisitons and if he does, it will have a dramatic effect. The MRCA could be decided on and purchased within weeks if MMS decided to move on it.
I’m sorry but your facts are bit mixed up here. The ATV programme started much before the NDA govt. However, procurement of big ticket defence items is not the issue. It’s the willingness to test missiles and develop new ones. You know if the govt really wanted to go slow on defence it could have deferred the anti ballistic missile tests, the Agni 3, Shourya and a host of other projects which all seem to be moving towards culmination.
The lease of the INS Chakra, an event to which I specifically referred, was during the NDA government. You are right that we had established the intent to develop an ATV even before that.
Procurement of big ticket defence items is very much an issue, if the non-availability of those items is then proferred as a reason for why we don't have any coercive diplomatic or military options left towards Pakistan.
As for the missile tests, those have been continuing under any number of governments. Yet, I remember BRF posts to the effect that our 10,000 km plus range ICBM, known as "Surya" (not "Shourya") was expected to be developed by the end of the last decade. I wonder why it wasn't... maybe because of the government in Delhi for more than half of the last decade? Surya, of course, would have been particularly displeasing to those whom MMS apparently wants to please at any cost to India.
And I’m sure you’ve seen press reports that state that there’s a move to speed up the MRCA acquisition. Also there’s a massive move to ramp up security in the North East. Now surely you’re point is not that the UPA govt which is a cat in the west becomes a tiger in the east?
Yes, I've seen press reports, and I'm quite aware of who controls the overwhelming majority of English language media in India.
But now and then a genuine news story also seeps through. For example, when I was visiting India last year, there were stories of ongoing Chinese incursions and landgrabs in the Ladakh sector around Leh.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 983271.cms
Then came all these reports about how Manmohan Singh had grown a pair and become a total "Tiger in the East". Like carefully cultivated plants they blossomed.
So imagine my surprise when, just last week, I saw this story which suggested it was STILL going on!
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/china-grabbi ... ml?from=tn
The Chinese can clearly gauge the toothlessness of our Tiger by gauging his response to the jackal Pakistan.
I'll believe all that about being a "Tiger in the East" when I see some evidence of it. To the extent that HH the Dalai Lama was allowed to visit Arunachal Pradesh, yes, I'll give credit for that to MMS. But the Chinese incursions and landgrabs are evidently still very much in progress. There has been no Sumdorong Chu to deter them.
Since the 1960s, the only GOI that has actively prioritized jumpstarting the military acquisitions process has been the Rajiv Gandhi government. Of course they were sloppy about kickbacks and such, and lost re-election largely on account of the Bofors scandal.
I agree with you on this. And
it is the singular responsibility of the non-Congress parties that they have kept the ghost of Bofors alive all these years by not getting to the bottom of the so called Rs64 crores kickbacks and the net result has been a badly crippled the Army which hasn’t been able to induct much needed artillery for more than two decades. Was it too difficult to bring the perpetrators of this kickback to book in the years that VP Singh and others were in power or more later when the NDA govt was in power for six years? Neither was that done, nor did the non Congress govts have the nerve to go out and buy new guns. Isn't just picking up the UPA govt on this a case of selective blame fixing?
Sorry boss, this is just too funny.
It is the "singular responsibility of the non-Congress Parties?" And why is that, pray?
Why do the Congress governments of PVNR (1991-96) and Manmohan Singh (2004-10) share no responsibility for investigating the Bofors kickbacks and bringing the perpetrators to book?? Are they not obliged to punish those who broke the laws of India, simply because the lawbreakers happened to belong to their own political party?
The non-Congress governments in between have certainly been remiss. But your willingness to give the Congress governments a pass suggests you think it is perfectly ok for them to cover up corruption on the part of an earlier government by the same party!
Not surprising though, considering what else you're willing to give them a pass on.[/quote]
