Bharat Rakshak

Pulikeshi wrote:
Can you explain why China needs to be a hegemon of East and/or Asia?

China is unfit for any of these things

I see, so you guys believe that East Asian hegemony is impossible, which is why you think that China's attempts are doomed to failure. I beg to differ. The U.S. has achieved hegemony along the island chains, so it's not inconceivable that China could as well. Now, I don't have any illusion of China could achieve the same level of hegemony in its neighborhood as the U.S. did in its, but something on the level of Myanmar or even Thailand is good enough.

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are all just small shrimp, they're nothing without the U.S., which is why you see the current Chinese efforts all directed against the Americans. As for India, it's too fragmented of a nation, it'll never have the unified direction or the drive to extend its power much beyond its borders. It's too large, too well-positioned geographically, and too populated for a Chinese hegemony, so China will just focus on keeping India contained.

As for the is China a nation topic, I think there's a thread for it. I've seen it but I haven't read it yet, I think I'll go check it out and comment further in there.

DavidD wrote:I see, so you guys believe that East Asian hegemony is impossible, which is why you think that China's attempts are doomed to failure. I beg to differ. The U.S. has achieved hegemony along the island chains, so it's not inconceivable that China could as well. Now, I don't have any illusion of China could achieve the same level of hegemony in its neighborhood as the U.S. did in its, but something on the level of Myanmar or even Thailand is good enough.

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are all just small shrimp, they're nothing without the U.S., which is why you see the current Chinese efforts all directed against the Americans. As for India, it's too fragmented of a nation, it'll never have the unified direction or the drive to extend its power much beyond its borders. It's too large, too well-positioned geographically, and too populated for a Chinese hegemony, so China will just focus on keeping India contained.

As for the is China a nation topic, I think there's a thread for it. I've seen it but I haven't read it yet, I think I'll go check it out and comment further in there.

Yes, keep hoping! By the way it seems all the annals of Chinese "strategic wisdom" have left out certain crucial elements. I would be delighted if the current Chinese leadership actually shares your beliefs and projections about India. It makes things a lot easier for us.

David,
I wonder why 'hegemony' is an aim instead of a prosperous country with friendly neighbours. Everyone from Alexander to Hitler, who wanted to be a hegemon, got their ten minutes of fame sure, but didnt leave behind anything longlasting either. Isn't history enough of an indicator as to which path is more long lasting and fruitful? Is a nationstate really as dumb as a military ruler or a dictator?!

Everyone can have any kind of view. Only time will tell which version turns out to be true. For example, Germans had poor opinion of Russians during WWII. In the end, the German views of Russians turned out to be wrong. The Pakistanis had some view about Hindus prior to 65 war. That did not turn out to be true.

So, while everyone is entitled to their worldview, predicting the future is not easy.

DavidD,

If you have not done so, then you can read up on Chola and Tang dynasty...
Will give you a non-western perspective of India-China relations.

DavidD wrote: As for India, it's too fragmented of a nation, it'll never have the unified direction or the drive to extend its power much beyond its borders. It's too large, too well-positioned geographically, and too populated for a Chinese hegemony, so China will just focus on keeping India contained.

Let us say you are right, has the containment worked?
Every action China has taken from 1962 to today is waking up India.
In some sense, India is an IOR power due to China.
In some sense, India became nuclear power because of China.
In some sense, India will become a hegemonic power because of China.

See the containment causes constraints, constraints for a democracy is a good thing...
As it allows the democracy to become focused.
Today, no one in India in their right mind has any illusions about what China stands for...
So, what China needs to worry about is what if their assessment of India were wrong!

DavidD wrote:I see, so you guys believe that East Asian hegemony is impossible, which is why you think that China's attempts are doomed to failure. I beg to differ. The U.S. has achieved hegemony along the island chains, so it's not inconceivable that China could as well.

Actually, not quite. China can become a East Asian hegemony,
but not the way it is pursuing it and not for the end results it seeks currently.
US (similar to others before it...) arrived in East Asia due to its own unique
geography and experience in history. Why is China blindly following whatever US did?

Let me ask you again - Can you explain why China needs to be a hegemon of East and/or Asia?

DavidD wrote: I see, so you guys believe that East Asian hegemony is impossible, which is why you think that China's attempts are doomed to failure. I beg to differ. The U.S. has achieved hegemony along the island chains, so it's not inconceivable that China could as well.

This story that China will one day be a super-power is a complete myth and wishful thinking. Everything we know about the world today and everything we know about where the world is heading today, points to the fact that China will be ONE of at least five to seven power centers in the world.

Common (chinese) people should really stop imagining things such as: China will one day become super-power like the US. China will rise and US will decline, but rest assured the current day model of "US style superpowerdom" is history. No one will be able to match it ever (not even US in future) barring any miraculous events.

DavidD wrote: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are all just small shrimp, they're nothing without the U.S., which is why you see the current Chinese efforts all directed against the Americans.

Even China is nothing without US. One of the main reason China is what it is today is because US decided to open trade with China. China has risen on the backs of its exports to US. If that export pipeline gets cut off for some reason, there will literally be revolt in Chinese streets.

DavidD wrote: As for India, it's too fragmented of a nation, it'll never have the unified direction or the drive to extend its power much beyond its borders.

Indians don't necessary subscribe to the "strong power center is necessary" kind of Chinese mentality, but I am curious as to what you mean by "fragmented" here. Care to explain?

DavidD wrote: It's too large, too well-positioned geographically, and too populated for a Chinese hegemony, so China will just focus on keeping India contained.

There is nothing strategic about this. Like a old paranoid man too scared and too afraid of things that might lie on the other side of that light in the dark tunnel, China likes to keep everything contained including their own domestic population.

Dhiman wrote: rest assured the current day model of "US style superpowerdom" is history. No one will be able to match it ever (not even US in future) barring any miraculous events.

In fact even this needs to be put in perspective:

The British had a huge chunk of "global superpower" status from the 1800s to the mid 1900s. Even that not complete and was shared among other European powers, a rising America, Russia and Japan

The USA became "supreme" only from August 6 1945 but had to share the honors with the USSR until 1990.

The US's "sole superpower" dominance lasted only from 1990 to 2008 or so - a femtosecond in history. No single country has ever really dominated the world.

DavidD wrote:So in your opinion, what should China do to achieve its goal of Asia hegemony?

The Chinese model is increase instability or harness pre-existing instability, occupy and consolidate. This works for weak nations on Chinese periphery. But in East Asia, with South Korea and Japan, the chances of this working are null.

For East Asia, China would have to use soft-power and provide an attractive political model. Where as soft-power may be possible, attractive political model is as distant from feasibility as possible. Besides, China uses Japan as a decoy to fire up its own Han nationalism, important for the unity of China. It can't use Japan for that and still expect soft-power to work. Also nobody is really fooled by the North Korean monkey, I think, least of all South Korea, about who is the puppeteer.

As China rises, Chinese modernization of the military and an authoritarian political system would push the neighbors to be wary and militarize themselves. China's charms can work only in countries which are anti-American or anti-Indian or anti-Japanese. But even there the charm is not really because of China itself but is reactionary. Last but not least, China has impressed the world by its economic leap. That however is temporary, as the other countries too make their leaps in the coming years.

Just to add to what others are saying.

Once South Korea and Japan start to consololidate. It will provide an incentive to the other weaker nations arround the PRC to bandwagon with either of the two. I am assuming that the distrust of the past will pervent South Korea and the Japanies to come together on their own. Once that happens, the options for the PRC will start to become very limited.

The major nations arround the perephery of the PRC are as follows.

1) Koreas (North/ South)
2) Japan
3) Philipines
4) Vietnam

Of the 4 only the North Korea is one that will follow the will of the PRC. Vietnam has already given it a boldy nose more than once. To cow down Japan it will have to develop the ability to cross the sea. South Korea will keep its options open. In the above analysis I have completely ignored the US and the role it plays in the region.

US may be a declining power? But it will not declinie at least militarly for the next 25 to 30 years. Unless it suffers a catastrophic military defeate. A loss in Afghanistan will not count. I am talking of some thing like the Battle of the Philipean Sea or midway type at least.

It can still act as a stiffiner to the east Asia when it comes to providing the east asian nations with the ability to confront the PRC.

Please bear in mind that nations pass over their hegmony to nations who share common values and virtues. Hegmony can always be broken but that requires overcoming the hegmon in all aspects and traditional denominations of power.

While the PRC may be capable of doing so. It will have to bear in mind that in that time frame it will also have to deal with an India that is also one of the most powerful nations (Economically and militarily)in the world.

So the job for the PRC is not that easy. Also it will help them to seek an accomodation with the nations of the perephiary.

In my previous posts on this thread. I have considered the PRC actions to be stupid. That they are lengthining the list of nations that are aggravted by it instead of the list of nations that are reassured by it.

The rise of the PRC will be beneficial to the PRC only if it dose not aggravate and frighten other nations. Unless the PRC understands it. The hegomony craved by it and its supporters will only be a chimera. With the scale of challanges being faced by the PRC it is fool hardy to think that it may overcome all the challanges in front ot it in a sucessful manner.

I have no Idea about the role Russia will play in the future. So I have left it out

JMT

Prasad wrote:David,
I wonder why 'hegemony' is an aim instead of a prosperous country with friendly neighbours. Everyone from Alexander to Hitler, who wanted to be a hegemon, got their ten minutes of fame sure, but didnt leave behind anything longlasting either. Isn't history enough of an indicator as to which path is more long lasting and fruitful? Is a nationstate really as dumb as a military ruler or a dictator?!

Alexander has certainly left plenty behind, but that's not really the point. The point is that if you don't aspire to become a hegemon, then you'll become the vassal of some other nation who does aspire to become on. Look at China for example, the Song and Ming dynasties were two of the richest and most prosperous dynasties in Chinese history, but their wealth is only matched by their inward-looking tendencies. It was then of little wonder that they were the only two Chinese dynasties in its thousands of years of history to fall to foreign invaders, the Mongols and the Manchurians respectively.

I'm really honestly quite surprised that you'd cite history as proof of your argument. The Romans were probably the greatest hegemon of ancient times, and they lasted a millennium and left legacies that still pervade the entire western society today. People like Napolean, Hitler, Ghengis Khan, and to an extent Alexander's mistake is attempting to achieve hegemony in one person's lifetime. That's impossibly fast. It needs to be done over generations. China has no illusions, hopefully, of becoming a hegemon overnight, it'll be the cumulative effort of generations of leaders over many, many decades and perhaps over a century.

Pratyush wrote:Just to add to what others are saying.

Once South Korea and Japan start to consololidate. It will provide an incentive to the other weaker nations arround the PRC to bandwagon with either of the two. I am assuming that the distrust of the past will pervent South Korea and the Japanies to come together on their own. Once that happens, the options for the PRC will start to become very limited.

The major nations arround the perephery of the PRC are as follows.

1) Koreas (North/ South)
2) Japan
3) Philipines
4) Vietnam

Of the 4 only the North Korea is one that will follow the will of the PRC. Vietnam has already given it a boldy nose more than once. To cow down Japan it will have to develop the ability to cross the sea. South Korea will keep its options open. In the above analysis I have completely ignored the US and the role it plays in the region.

US may be a declining power? But it will not declinie at least militarly for the next 25 to 30 years. Unless it suffers a catastrophic military defeate. A loss in Afghanistan will not count. I am talking of some thing like the Battle of the Philipean Sea or midway type at least.

It can still act as a stiffiner to the east Asia when it comes to providing the east asian nations with the ability to confront the PRC.

Please bear in mind that nations pass over their hegmony to nations who share common values and virtues. Hegmony can always be broken but that requires overcoming the hegmon in all aspects and traditional denominations of power.

While the PRC may be capable of doing so. It will have to bear in mind that in that time frame it will also have to deal with an India that is also one of the most powerful nations (Economically and militarily)in the world.

So the job for the PRC is not that easy. Also it will help them to seek an accomodation with the nations of the perephiary.

In my previous posts on this thread. I have considered the PRC actions to be stupid. That they are lengthining the list of nations that are aggravted by it instead of the list of nations that are reassured by it.

The rise of the PRC will be beneficial to the PRC only if it dose not aggravate and frighten other nations. Unless the PRC understands it. The hegomony craved by it and its supporters will only be a chimera. With the scale of challanges being faced by the PRC it is fool hardy to think that it may overcome all the challanges in front ot it in a sucessful manner.

I have no Idea about the role Russia will play in the future. So I have left it out

JMT

25 to 30 years? China can wait a century if needs to be. In the meantime, they'll continue to push forward but stop short of war. I tend to agree with the assertion that China miscalculated its position vis-a-vis the U.S. during the global recession and pushed too hard a bit, but they'll reevaluated and adjust I'm sure. Already, they've backtracked from the "south China sea is our core interest" statement.

As for Japan, SK, etc. They are, once again, small shrimps who are nothing without the U.S. They're already under U.S. hegemony, and when the Americans retreat, they'll simply be under China's. China's economy in PPP terms is already far larger than theirs combined, and they'll see the hopelessness of resistance, they'll join China's side instead. Vietnam is actually more difficult to deal with because they don't have a democracy and freedom of speech, so they'll be tougher to influence. Similar ideology won't matter because China, unlike the proselytizing Americans(and Westerners in general, probably due to crusading tendencies of Christianity), don't give a hoot what political system or religion you have. As long as you don't get in their way and keep doing business with them, there won't be any significant conflict with China.

I must make one point clear though, I do NOT expect the same level of hegemony the U.S. has achieved with its neighbors. Again, China's goal is not to make SK/Japan/etc. their minions, but simply nations who won't get in their way and who can do business with.

well the fundamental question is still not being answered - as Pulikeshi pointed out - why the overwhelming urge to become the regional hegemon? Just in the same fashion as the supposedly hated "west" and "westerners"! Past dynasties in various parts of the region currently called China, not only fell to "outsiders" but also died natural deaths, and also fell to each other. Why do we need to attach "southern" or "northern" adjectives to dynasties? What happened over the complex dance over the territories now known as Manchuria, Korean peninsula etc.? The Mongols ruling "China" failed in their expedition into Vietnam. It appears that the historical dynasties and regimes in various parts of the East Asian plains do not seem to have had a great success in establishing "hegemony" except within the lower flood plains and the ancient "walls" at various stages appear to indicate quite accurately the extent of influence of such regimes.

So it is difficult to find evidence that past regimes in lower East Asian plains really ever seriously thought of or even tried to establish regional hegemony. There could be a very good reason behind it. It was the lack of a proper grounding philosophy that could provide a framework for a nationhood that could last beyond an emperor or a dynasty. The reason Buddhism was transmitted through the area as an alternative providing some higher purpose in life than merely spilling your blood and labour for the pleasures of an emperor with his numerous concubines and eunuchs - (since all other indigenous "Chinese" philosophies were busy merely justifying the regime).

The current PRC has no ennobling philosophy that the "Chinese" can identify with. Communism and Marxism is simply an image associated with rampant corruption and authoritarian abuse of power by highly placed communist mini-dynasties and court intrigue. The failure to understand the basic principles of nationhood never allowed the so-called Chinese empires really to become a nation, and without nationhood, you cannot have hegemony.

brihaspati wrote:well the fundamental question is still not being answered - as Pulikeshi pointed out - why the overwhelming urge to become the regional hegemon? Just in the same fashion as the supposedly hated "west" and "westerners"! Past dynasties in various parts of the region currently called China, not only fell to "outsiders" but also died natural deaths, and also fell to each other. Why do we need to attach "southern" or "northern" adjectives to dynasties? What happened over the complex dance over the territories now known as Manchuria, Korean peninsula etc.? The Mongols ruling "China" failed in their expedition into Vietnam. It appears that the historical dynasties and regimes in various parts of the East Asian plains do not seem to have had a great success in establishing "hegemony" except within the lower flood plains and the ancient "walls" at various stages appear to indicate quite accurately the extent of influence of such regimes.

So it is difficult to find evidence that past regimes in lower East Asian plains really ever seriously thought of or even tried to establish regional hegemony. There could be a very good reason behind it. It was the lack of a proper grounding philosophy that could provide a framework for a nationhood that could last beyond an emperor or a dynasty. The reason Buddhism was transmitted through the area as an alternative providing some higher purpose in life than merely spilling your blood and labour for the pleasures of an emperor with his numerous concubines and eunuchs - (since all other indigenous "Chinese" philosophies were busy merely justifying the regime).

The current PRC has no ennobling philosophy that the "Chinese" can identify with. Communism and Marxism is simply an image associated with rampant corruption and authoritarian abuse of power by highly placed communist mini-dynasties and court intrigue. The failure to understand the basic principles of nationhood never allowed the so-called Chinese empires really to become a nation, and without nationhood, you cannot have hegemony.

I've already answered that question. If you're not aspiring to be a hegemon, then somebody else will aspire to be a hegemon over you. I'm not sure I understand your question about northern and southern dynasties. I mean, a northern one is in the north, a southern one is in the south, so...yeah.

I've also already explained China's vision of hegemony, and how it's different from the American one, and I've also stated that Vietnam will be difficult. I don't really understand your statement about nationhood either. Maybe you have some definition of nationhood that I'm not aware of, but in any case, it doesn't matter. Whatever you wanna call China, it wants to achieve regional hegemony, and it's working hard toward that goal.

The only way India can help Korea/Japan/Vietnam is by tying up PLA troops along the Himalayas or by giving moral/diplomatic support to these country. India is no position, economically or geographically to assist any of the North East Asian nations materially. The economic factor will not change for the next 15 years at least. There is little we can do geographically.
The only country which can help the North-East-Asian countries materially and diplomatically against China is US. This will remain true for the next 15 years.

But we have one ace up our sleeve. The Indian Ocean. Over here we are the lord. And it is through this Ocean that Chinese Oil and Gas ships must pass under the watch full eyes of Indian naval ships and Indian Air Force. Our island chains of Andaman and Lakshwadeep, give us enormous leverage. Even with ports in Pakistan or Burma or Sri lanka, Indian forces can wreck havoc on the Chinese petroleum supply. China knows this. China also knows that currently most of its oil and gas shipments, must pass through USN or IN controlled waters. That is why it is built up a strategic petroleum reserve. That is why it is so interested in building pipelines through Burma and pipelines to the central Asian countries.

Christopher Sidor wrote:But we have one ace up our sleeve. The Indian Ocean. Over here we are the lord. And it is through this Ocean that Chinese Oil and Gas ships must pass under the watch full eyes of Indian naval ships and Indian Air Force.

I don't think this status can be guaranteed over the long term. China is building pipelines through Iran-Turkmenistan-Kazakhstan-Xinjiang. These pipelines create a network which bypasses all the major powers - USA, Russia, India. Of course not all of the Oil and Gas will pass through this route, and there will be lot passing through the Indian Ocean as well.

DavidD wrote:
I've already answered that question. If you're not aspiring to be a hegemon, then somebody else will aspire to be a hegemon over you. I'm not sure I understand your question about northern and southern dynasties. I mean, a northern one is in the north, a southern one is in the south, so...yeah.

I've also already explained China's vision of hegemony, and how it's different from the American one, and I've also stated that Vietnam will be difficult. I don't really understand your statement about nationhood either. Maybe you have some definition of nationhood that I'm not aware of, but in any case, it doesn't matter. Whatever you wanna call China, it wants to achieve regional hegemony, and it's working hard toward that goal.

See that is the fundamental problem, not all "Chinese", but some "Chinese" indeed appear to have failed to understand the distinction between the "nation" and the "empire". An empire does not survive in the absence of an emperor, or a regime - which alone lends it definition and focus. A nation does not need particular regime or emperor to survive. This is the main reason empires based in East Asia were never really hegemons for any consistent bit of time.

In an earlier post you brought up the "Roman Empire" as an example of a long lasting hegemon leaving its stamp on Europe. Really if that sort of incomplete and prejudiced reading of history drives the Chinese communist logic, then it is indeed a sorry future for the "Chinese". Have you studied really the rise and fall of the "Roman empire"? It is precisely its empire ambitions and seeking hegemony - that finally ruined it. What survived was not simply "Roman" - stamp, for even what is called "Roman" is essentially a motley kaleidoscope of borrowing and copying without acknowledgment of other civilizations' products. Moreover that very typically imperial cheating [in passing off others produce as its own] also had to compromise long term with Germanic and Celtic motifs. Essentially the Romans were pushed out before the forces they hated most and set out initially to destroy - the Germanic and Celtic hordes and the "barbarians of Central Asia and the steppes" - finally leaving no possibility of its survival or even revival.

Yes, what you claim China is pursuing, if really pursued - will destroy "China" as it exists today. We as Indians only need to see to it that you continue to estimate India as you have done, and encourage you to overstretch yourself in your imperial ambitions.

x-post
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/world ... .html?_r=1
A Yearning for the Soul of Two Nations

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Had the judgment come from a philosopher or sociologist or foreign journalist, it might have been unremarkable. But it came instead from the political matriarch of India’s governing party. “Our economy may increasingly be dynamic,” Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress party, said last week in New Delhi, “but our moral universe seems to be shrinking.
“It is impossible to feel calm and quiet in a society that only chases profits,” Ji Qi told me in the smoky lobby of a Marriott Hotel in Shanghai.A good civilization should be balanced between material and spiritual,” he said. He thinks that China will undergo, like South Korea before it, a rapid religious revival in the coming decades as more and more people come to feel what he feels. Lately he finds himself turning to ancient Taoist texts, to Confucius, to Buddhism, all to anchor himself. He said what so many others did, in different ways: “We need an evolution of thoughts and ideas.”
Indians and Chinese now have time to reflect about growth — as evidenced perhaps in the thousands who turned out last weekend to mourn those who perished in an apartment tower inferno in Shanghai. The questions they are asking are not only about superpowerdom and their place in the world. They are also about anchoring and purpose, about the quiet life within. For what great idea will each country be known? What counterweights will each poise against the pull of money? Who will be their new heroes? What kind of world will they summon? What will be, when the hot growth cools and the deeper reckoning comes, the meaning of their

rise?

Why does not China befriend India

China wants to grow economically.
It needs lots of oil pipelines and ocean liners to meet its demand.
In all these scenarios India sits like an elephant across everywhere where -- oil pipelines across central asia/south asia or IOR.

It makes sense to china to befriend India because India is the most stable of all states in asia in these regions. It is also a guarantor of peace in maritime security also oil pipelines.
If any country if at all can screw china in asia it is India.

Other countries like Burma/TSP and central asian countries are not as stable as India.

Why does china not befriend India. What makes them paranoid about India. It defies common sense to a lay person like me.

By befriending the unstable and paranoid regimes it is reminding the common chinese that CCP is keeping china united. The mango chinese only see the unstable countries and thank the CCP for keeping china as a strong nation. The chinese press and internet is totally controlled by CCP. No independent source of info for mango chinese. Hence the relevance of CCP and its blind followers.

My reasoning--
China
1) china is a communist country which believes in subduing its own citizens for their uninterrupted one party rule.
2) History of china is about gaining hegemony of Hans over other nationalities.
3) Creating a uniform policy on everything --- results in stifling the creativity of individual chinese --called as uniting china.

India

Indians believe in free thought process. It is echoed in its culture and history. It does not fear differences in opinions or thoughts. It has strenghthened the culture.


By opening the oilpipelines through India and also India helping in securing guarateees to maritime security to its tankers across IOR, will this unravel the communist party in china.

How will these occur.

These actions will result in greater interactions between chinese and Indians. mango chinese will see more of India and how India functions in democracy with its abundant freedom.By noticing the differences between the two, common chinese might want to become Indians(in thought process and freedom) . They may demand more political freedom along with economic freedom. This can screw up the unity of CCP (Han nationalism by subduing others). Once the thought process is opened it will be difficult to put the lid back. This can bring the downfall of CCP and not china as a nation.
CCP is equating its rule as the best ever happened to china, hence it is imperative for china to have CCP. It is its best bet to have a stranghold on common chinese. CCP=china. No CCP = No china. Hence it controls the thought process of ordinary chinese.


Any other thoughts??

krisna wrote:Why does not China befriend India


It makes sense to china to befriend India because India is the most stable of all states in asia in these regions. It is also a guarantor of peace in maritime security also oil pipelines.
If any country if at all can screw china in asia it is India.

Why does china not befriend India. What makes them paranoid about India. It defies common sense to a lay person like me.

China 's foreign policy towards South Asia is not controlled by Chinese govt.
India is also a threat to many western govt. They want to work with China to contain India.

krisna wrote:Why does not China befriend India

China wants to grow economically.
It needs lots of oil pipelines and ocean liners to meet its demand.
In all these scenarios India sits like an elephant across everywhere where -- oil pipelines across central asia/south asia or IOR.

It makes sense to china to befriend India because India is the most stable of all states in asia in these regions. It is also a guarantor of peace in maritime security also oil pipelines.
If any country if at all can screw china in asia it is India.

Other countries like Burma/TSP and central asian countries are not as stable as India.

Why does china not befriend India. What makes them paranoid about India. It defies common sense to a lay person like me.

By befriending the unstable and paranoid regimes it is reminding the common chinese that CCP is keeping china united. The mango chinese only see the unstable countries and thank the CCP for keeping china as a strong nation. The chinese press and internet is totally controlled by CCP. No independent source of info for mango chinese. Hence the relevance of CCP and its blind followers.

My reasoning--
China
1) china is a communist country which believes in subduing its own citizens for their uninterrupted one party rule.
2) History of china is about gaining hegemony of Hans over other nationalities.
3) Creating a uniform policy on everything --- results in stifling the creativity of individual chinese --called as uniting china.

India

Indians believe in free thought process. It is echoed in its culture and history. It does not fear differences in opinions or thoughts. It has strenghthened the culture.


By opening the oilpipelines through India and also India helping in securing guarateees to maritime security to its tankers across IOR, will this unravel the communist party in china.

How will these occur.

These actions will result in greater interactions between chinese and Indians. mango chinese will see more of India and how India functions in democracy with its abundant freedom.By noticing the differences between the two, common chinese might want to become Indians(in thought process and freedom) . They may demand more political freedom along with economic freedom. This can screw up the unity of CCP (Han nationalism by subduing others). Once the thought process is opened it will be difficult to put the lid back. This can bring the downfall of CCP and not china as a nation.
CCP is equating its rule as the best ever happened to china, hence it is imperative for china to have CCP. It is its best bet to have a stranghold on common chinese. CCP=china. No CCP = No china. Hence it controls the thought process of ordinary chinese.


Any other thoughts??

To quote your own comment, "[India is] like an elephant across everywhere where," and that's precisely why China doesn't want to befriend India. By leaving the security of the IOR to another country, China leaves itself vulnerable. You don't befriend another power close to you, you befriend powers that are far from you and do what you can to assert power over the ones close to you. Now, that's a very general statement and there are obviously many, many cases of exceptions, but it's a good guiding principle.

brihaspati wrote:

DavidD wrote:
I've already answered that question. If you're not aspiring to be a hegemon, then somebody else will aspire to be a hegemon over you. I'm not sure I understand your question about northern and southern dynasties. I mean, a northern one is in the north, a southern one is in the south, so...yeah.

I've also already explained China's vision of hegemony, and how it's different from the American one, and I've also stated that Vietnam will be difficult. I don't really understand your statement about nationhood either. Maybe you have some definition of nationhood that I'm not aware of, but in any case, it doesn't matter. Whatever you wanna call China, it wants to achieve regional hegemony, and it's working hard toward that goal.

See that is the fundamental problem, not all "Chinese", but some "Chinese" indeed appear to have failed to understand the distinction between the "nation" and the "empire". An empire does not survive in the absence of an emperor, or a regime - which alone lends it definition and focus. A nation does not need particular regime or emperor to survive. This is the main reason empires based in East Asia were never really hegemons for any consistent bit of time.

In an earlier post you brought up the "Roman Empire" as an example of a long lasting hegemon leaving its stamp on Europe. Really if that sort of incomplete and prejudiced reading of history drives the Chinese communist logic, then it is indeed a sorry future for the "Chinese". Have you studied really the rise and fall of the "Roman empire"? It is precisely its empire ambitions and seeking hegemony - that finally ruined it. What survived was not simply "Roman" - stamp, for even what is called "Roman" is essentially a motley kaleidoscope of borrowing and copying without acknowledgment of other civilizations' products. Moreover that very typically imperial cheating [in passing off others produce as its own] also had to compromise long term with Germanic and Celtic motifs. Essentially the Romans were pushed out before the forces they hated most and set out initially to destroy - the Germanic and Celtic hordes and the "barbarians of Central Asia and the steppes" - finally leaving no possibility of its survival or even revival.

Yes, what you claim China is pursuing, if really pursued - will destroy "China" as it exists today. We as Indians only need to see to it that you continue to estimate India as you have done, and encourage you to overstretch yourself in your imperial ambitions.

So if China is an "empire", why has it survived for thousands of years? And tell me, since "This is the main reason empires based in East Asia were never really hegemons for any consistent bit of time," can you give me an example of a "nation" that were hegemons for any consistent bit of time? If the Romans and the Chinese dynasties, who were hegemons for hundreds of years at a time, were not "hegemons for any consistent bit of time", then please show me examples of "nations" which were better hegemons.

Dhiman wrote: China has risen on the backs of its exports to US. If that export pipeline gets cut off for some reason, there will literally be revolt in Chinese streets.

Bingo. This combined with the currency trap has china worried, maybe for the first time. But the average chinese seems to be clueless and unable to understand that his goodwill depends on American shoes and underwear which can and will leave just as easily as they came. A real disaster waiting to happen.

Victor wrote:

Dhiman wrote: China has risen on the backs of its exports to US. If that export pipeline gets cut off for some reason, there will literally be revolt in Chinese streets.

Bingo. This combined with the currency trap has china worried, maybe for the first time. But the average chinese seems to be clueless and unable to understand that his goodwill depends on American shoes and underwear which can and will leave just as easily as they came. A real disaster waiting to happen.

America wants to keep it that way and 'work' with China as G2 to do it thing in Asia.
America wants an order which suits its geo political needs and willing to work with a dictator country if it needs

Acharya wrote: America wants an order which suits its geo political needs and willing to work with a dictator country if it needs

Even if that is the case, they have planned it as badly as everything else. Chinese factories are producing for the top of the demand curve but the demand is contracting because of declining demographics of the main growth driver the last 40 years--the baby boomers. The current economy is not the main issue here although it is a serious one. On top of this, as chinese wages go up, Americans will not pay higher prices for their goods regardless of geopolitical needs. The manufacturing will move like it always has and it's only a question of when and where. Also, we should consider that India's goals may be more compatible with Unkil's than China's.

DavidD wrote: So if China is an "empire", why has it survived for thousands of years?

Has it really? In what way?

Not sure how many are Bogart fans

Watch the movie "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" - there are three main characters.
(Spoiler alert)

1. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart)
2. Curtin (Tim Holt)
3. Howard (Walter Huston)

Long story short, Dobbs and Curtin are hurting. Howard, an old gold rat, is
weaving wild stories of gold in Sierra Madre at a local pub.
None have money to pursue the gold.
Dobbs scores some money in a lottery. Then the three have enough money
to go down to dig for some gold. They even find some glitter...

Series of events reveals that Dobbs is always suspicious of everyone. So much
so that he believes that Curtin is out to get him. Dobbs is less suspicious of
Howard, but not by much. Howard ends up saving a ill native child and he is
invited away to share native hospitality. Curtin and Dobbs must now protect
Howard's share. However, Dobbs is worried that Curtin is going to try something.
Dobbs is so worried that he cannot go to sleep, eventually he tries to murder Curtin.
Dobbs now holds all the gold, but needs to make a long lonely trip through the desert.

The movie ends with Dobbs being murdered by highway bandits. The bandits
are foolish enough to not know the worth of the bags of sands on the mules.
They break the bags and release it to the elements. Curtin meets up with
Howard and they both laugh - at the irony. Of course they both are better off than Dobbs!

The unbroken spirit of Curtin and Howard is testment to their character.
It would be easy for me to point out who Dobbs, Curtin and Howard are

Dhiman wrote:

DavidD wrote: So if China is an "empire", why has it survived for thousands of years?

Has it really? In what way?

In the way of a few decades away from achieving East Asia hegemony again

[quote="DavidD]

In the way of a few decades away from achieving East Asia hegemony again [/quote]

Oh! great...if that is the thought process, best of luck. The Chinese government has already managed to get the Indian political and bereaucratic set-up (the most reactionary and knee-jerk action oriented bunch) to wake-up and get to sanction and raise the over all strength of Armed Forces with Indian Army alone being slated to raise the strength by 200K+ soldiers - and most of them offensive oriented. So, good morning - wake up and smell the coffee....the developments are not linear as you'd think they are....there is enough rumbling already.

Rohit,

These guys think that waking up a sleeping Lion / provoking a placid Eliphant is an act of great stratagic wisdom. Perhaps it is, if geting trampled under foot of the Eliphant or being evicerated by a Lion is a desirable end game.

It is only if your end goal is to get your self killed.

Moreover, regardless of how powerful PRC will get. It will not be a match for a whole host of powers who stand united in opposition to it.

The Lion has awoken, the eliphant has stirred. Unless the PRC has the ability to diliver a killing blow. It will get nothing but resolute opposition from them.

JMT

DavidD wrote
So if China is an "empire", why has it survived for thousands of years? And tell me, since "This is the main reason empires based in East Asia were never really hegemons for any consistent bit of time," can you give me an example of a "nation" that were hegemons for any consistent bit of time? If the Romans and the Chinese dynasties, who were hegemons for hundreds of years at a time, were not "hegemons for any consistent bit of time", then please show me examples of "nations" which were better hegemons.

Show me material outside of communist party propaganda - that a concept of "China" existed for "thousands" of years! There were empires, dynasties, kingdoms, contested claims, moving around in boundaries and military holds - not occupying the whole of current "China" most of the time. All the claims of identities are strictly based on identities and dynasties or dominant families - but never an idea or identity that transcends family identity. But there was no abstract "China", no concept of a sacred geography on which alone was based any concept of nationhood or national identity.

Surely you have read your chronicles of the "first emperor" - the closest identification with the "Chin" and some concept of sovereignty. What is the dominant theme in that empire's identity - that as the dominions of the "emperor". This is epitomized in the surviving descriptions of what was attempted as his burial chamber. It tried to show his dominions in which he lies and continues to rule forever into the future - complete with his army.

Bharatyias have been talking of a "punya bhoomi" - a sacred land, that is both the source as well as preserver of both material and spiritual civilization, and its identity is based on a criteria of "civilization" (not necessarily entirely material) - or "Arya". Bharat was primarily identified as an area of "civilization" - independent of this or that family or emperor or king - as "Arya bhoomi" or land of the civilized. Indians distinguished between "domain" and "civilizational sacred geography" - and even the label of Bharat stuck primarily because of the king concerned. That particular king was not identified only because of his success in defeating invasions and consolidating the region's sovereignty - since a lot many others are reputed to have done the same - but because that king also did not give priority to the concept of hereditary or family or clan as the basis of "nation" and in fact selected someone not belonging to his ruling family or the warrior clans as his successor disinheriting his own sons.


You are not really aware of what hegemony means and all the discussion that have gone over hegemony. Since you come from Chinese roots and also subscribe to current communist China - you should have no problem in getting hold of the Marxist literature on hegemony. Since not many Chinese since Mao, are known even within acknowledgment of Marxist circles, who are recognized to have contributed theoretically anything "new" - [and Mao did not produce any theoretical work but only applied ones on "hegemony"] can you look up Antonio Gramsci? You should read his exposition of "hegemony" and it is not only military or coercive power (economic/military whatever) alone to control behaviour or outcomes but also an ideological/cultural floor ("twin floors of hegemony"). Even from the Marxist viewpoint you will see that India has been a lot more of a hegemon compared to "China" for thousands of years.


I dont think there is any point discussing the Roman empire with you. Since you seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that the single centre Roman military hegemony only lasted roughly for at most 250 years. Even there it suffered severe setbacks - such as in Germany under one of its most successful Imperator and went on to repeat what all empires do when they see failure written large on the horizon - build defensive walls on boundaries. You have not really studied all aspects of the Roman empire, its compulsions, its economy and how it continuously went downhill almost from the very beginning of its formal "hegemonic foundation" in the 1st century BCE. From the mid 300's the empire was practically gone, and the western empire was dead by the mid 400's. The eastern empire continuously lost territory and was ultimately on a long slow bleeding to death. More significantly it became increasingly "un-Roman" in character as it had to incorporate non-Roman elements to survive and also to compromise with the regional enemies.

Roughly within 200 years of the fall of the western empire, the eastern had been forced to practically wind up from the south of the Bosphorus. Where do you see the thousand year hegemony? Moreover a lot of "Roman empire" was based on copying other civilizations and systems, just as other empires have been before and since then!

Lastly see for what is "China" is known or propagandized as having contributed to human life - gunpowder, paper, block printing, tea, silk, and other "inventions" (some of these are contested as having been copied from others , and seeing how things are now with copying practices in modern China - there could be some grounds to doubt - don't you agree? ) - all material objects, and some of which like gunpowder cannot be dubbed entirely "contributions" to human happiness! Compared to that India is known or more or less acknowledged (since Indians have never really cared to beat their own drum, there is no propaganda and when people acknowledge its because they have no way of denying) for mathematics, abstract thought, logic, astronomy and cosmology, deep scientific insights increasingly convergent with modern findings, philosophies and life-ordering systems and pursuit of understanding and goals beyond the regime/rule/empire/kingdom/individual life, while at the same time also producing material innovations - like fine textile, metallurgy, marine engineering, urban planning, medicine and surgery.

Can you see the difference - and why India has a more profound and lasting impact on civilizations which East Asia never had?

Acharya wrote: Why does china not befriend India. What makes them paranoid about India. It defies common sense to a lay person like me.

China 's foreign policy towards South Asia is not controlled by Chinese govt.
India is also a threat to many western govt. They want to work with China to contain India

China is independent of its foreign policy. Its policies may or may not match the western ones.
could please explain the bolded part.

DavidD wrote:

krisna wrote:Why does not China befriend India

<snip>

Any other thoughts??

To quote your own comment, "[India is] like an elephant across everywhere where," and that's precisely why China doesn't want to befriend India. By leaving the security of the IOR to another country, China leaves itself vulnerable. You don't befriend another power close to you, you befriend powers that are far from you and do what you can to assert power over the ones close to you. Now, that's a very general statement and there are obviously many, many cases of exceptions, but it's a good guiding principle.

By creating an enemy like the elephant it is worse for china.
China is creating more uncertainity to its quest for oil by befriending weaker and unstable powers. This may boomerang on it with loss of its economic potential. If locals go against the unstable govts it is curtains for china for sometime.
India is stable on these aspects.


The concept of not befriending another close power does not make much sense. By creating enemy china is making the elephant to dig deep into its reserves to withstand itself and also create formidable opposition to china.
1) India will make sure it is inside all the local govts in its region. It will influence their policies.
2) India is going to east asia and south east asia and making sure they are helped. These countries would like alternate power center to china as china is a bully. Uncle is always in the background.

By its actions it is creating antagonism across all nations including the uncle.
a) If you want to fight uncle then you better make friends with other powers so that they dont trouble you when you fight the bigger power.
b) If you want to pick fight with India then make friends with others in east asian region and uncle, make India a weaker power so that it does not stand in its way in future.
If china cannot maintain hegemony in its backyard (east asian region) then how can it fight the uncle and India.
It also has large tracts of land not 100% in control-- tibet and xinjaing. (I mean other than military control).
It still defies common sense.

krisna wrote:

China 's foreign policy towards South Asia is not controlled by Chinese govt.
India is also a threat to many western govt. They want to work with China to contain India

China is independent of its foreign policy. Its policies may or may not match the western ones.
could please explain the bolded part.

If it is a question please repeat it or rephrase it

From Orbat

#

Second batch of two Indian mountain divisions under raising The first batch of two was for the Northeast; the second division will complete raising in March 2011. The next batch of two is for Ladakh, and we thought they would be raised in 2012-2014, but but it seems raising is already under way, because the divisions have been assigned numbers. We will be unable to give numbers until Mandeep Singh Bajwa, or South Asia correspondent, confirms and says its okay.
#

We're wondering if Beijing realizes how unnecessary and how stupid its provocations and efforts to intimidate India have been. Previously, India had a true offensive capability against China only in the Sikkim/West Bhutan area. But now India is building a major offensive capability for Ladakh, for Middle Arunachal, and for the extreme Northeast. India is to also add an independent armored brigade and independent infantry brigade to its forces in Ladakh, with the result that from two brigades its capability will increase four-fold.
#

And these four divisions are only the start. The Indian Army has asked for seven more divisions, of which three are likely to be approved soon, the rest will probably wait till the next round of Chinese provocations.
#

How has any of this helped China? For years it has gotten by with just two brigades and frontier troops in Tibet; now it will have to respond with a major counter buildup - which of course the Indians have foreseen, which is why the Army has asked for another seven divisions, which will require China to do yet another buildup. The Chinese ego has been boosted by picking on India, but all that China has succeeded in doing is making its position in Tibet very much more difficult.
#

(India had a total of 11 divisions - one infantry and ten mountain - for deployment against China prior to 1971. This came down to 9 divisions by the 1990s. By 2012-13 it will be up to 12.

Korean unification is one step. Next is Uighers.

China cannot befriend any country. It is a peculiar Chinese trait that is based on thier world view 'all under heaven'. In their imagination, only one, all powerful monarch is possible. In the long run, all politics is about who will be this power.

Unlike Hindu view, which is informed by polytheism and multiple power centers. We say that multiple power centers are not only possible but also necessary. This is based on the Dharma, which says 'live and let live'.

Even European world view, when de-Christianised, is amenable to multiple power centers and consequent stability. For example, Nazi Germany's behaviour is a good illustration of a rising power, informed by self righteousness (Christianity).

However, China is incapable of coexistence. Hence, it will continue to pick fights with others. And since its world view involves conflict with others as natural, it sees the current round of conflicts as price, not pain. Hence, it cannot be compelled to stop due to any internal mechamism. It will have to be taken down by outside, like Nazi Germany.

ramana wrote:Korean unification is one step. Next is Uighers.

Ramana,

I could not understand gist of your post.

Is it, that once the Koreas are unified and the Uighers are detached from the PRC the threat represented by the PRC will reduce?

Or is it some thing else entirly?

XXX Post

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-2 ... r-bet.html
Microsoft's Ballmer Says China Piracy Makes India a Better Bet

Microsoft Corp. is less optimistic about China as a market than India or Indonesia because of the country’s lack of progress in stamping out software piracy, Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer said.
“India is not perfect but the intellectual property protection in India is far, far better than it would be in China,” the head of the world’s largest software maker said in an interview in Hanoi, Vietnam, yesterday. “China is a less interesting market to us than India, than Indonesia.”
Ballmer’s concerns underscore growing dismay among U.S. companies toward operating in the world’s third-largest economy. Google Inc. in March moved its Chinese service out of the mainland to avoid censorship rules, and the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing said last month its members face an increasingly difficult regulatory environment. China has implemented more than 1,000 measures related to the protection of intellectual property and the government will continue such efforts, said Chen Rongkai, a media officer at the nation’s Ministry of Commerce in Beijing. “China’s effort at strengthening protection of intellectual property is universally

US embassy cables: Beijing's lost patience leaves Pyongyang with little to lose
The revelation that China might accept the idea of reunification under South Korea could make an unstable situation worse

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nification

A Chinese foreign affairs expert earlier this year, asked what China's best option was in North Korea, pulled a despairing face. "Status quo," he answered. As WikiLeaks has revealed, China may have been hoping for the best, but it has been actively planning for a quite different outcome.
The "spoilt child" is increasingly out of Chinese control. The North Korean regime this year has sunk a South Korean warship, resumed its nuclear enrichment programme, and shelled a South Korean island. China has been calling for calm. The question in Beijing today is, what effect will the release of documents have on North Korea's regime, now that the degree of Chinese exasperation with its problematic neighbour is public knowledge?
The Chinese government has ordered domestic media not to report on the WikiLeaks documents, and the website is blocked – as is the Guardian's data download site. But though Beijing may temporarily prevent its citizens accessing the details, the utility of China's friendship with Pyongyang was already heavily questioned in Beijing, not only in discreet foreign policy and security circles, but also in the public media.
After the shelling episode last week, one of China's leading business magazines, Caixin, said: "A large question looming in the minds of many is how much [Chinese] taxpayers' money has been spent on North Korean assistance … Bearing this in mind, the only question to ask is one of principle. Why does China continue to aid North Korea?"The figures are classified but, according to some analysts, North Korea swallows nearly 40% of China's total foreign aid budget, and Beijing supplies Pyongyang with 50,000 tonnes of oil a month – this to maintain a buffer state against Japan, South Korea and the United States. But in today's post-Maoist China, as Caixin pointed out, these are no longer China's enemies. Trade and investment flows with the three are worth billions, while North Korea is an expensive and increasingly unruly embarrassment.
North Korea's 2006 nuclear test was seen in Beijing as a gesture of defiance not only to the US and Japan, but also to China. Beijing had made it clear to Pyongyang that it disapproved. China publicly condemned the test in unprecedentedly strong terms and, unusually, supported UN sanctions in response.It is a sign of how far the Chinese government has moved away from its cold war ideology that the country's officials should speak so frankly to both US and South Korean diplomats. Beijing's foreign policy goals are to maintain a peaceful international environment and to secure sufficient resources for China to continue to grow, for fear that any slackening could threaten domestic stability. Any residual value in provoking the US by proxy is outweighed by the damage the relationship is doing to China's carefully cultivated image of a peaceful member of the family of nations.