US and PRC relationship & India
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
indianization of US is well underway. in terms of beliefs, in the penetration of indians in the economy, in social consciousness etc.
they do understand. i am amazed at the amount of understanding my work colleagues have regarding india.
one of my colleague's child name is "India". a britisher of course.
yoga is everywhere. gods are known by many people and vedas quoted easily.
Ganesha is known by almost everyone !!
many are buddhists as well.
they do understand. i am amazed at the amount of understanding my work colleagues have regarding india.
one of my colleague's child name is "India". a britisher of course.
yoga is everywhere. gods are known by many people and vedas quoted easily.
Ganesha is known by almost everyone !!
many are buddhists as well.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
V_Raman wrote:indianization of US is well underway. in terms of beliefs, in the penetration of indians in the economy, in social consciousness etc.
they do understand. i am amazed at the amount of understanding my work colleagues have regarding india.
one of my colleague's child name is "India". a britisher of course.
yoga is everywhere. gods are known by many people and vedas quoted easily.
Ganesha is known by almost everyone !!
many are buddhists as well.
all this knowledge.....why is it not melting away the hatred of the EJ's? the love flowing from the "enlightened" should have ground the hatred of EJ's to dust by now. all this is tamasha....has no bearing on US policies wrt India.
"West" has long way to go before they ACCEPT the atrocities they perpetrated on Asia and Africa. only then will they "understand" the "enlightenment"....until then, its wishful thinking. we'll be deluded into believing fantasies if we go down that path.
-
- BR Mainsite Crew
- Posts: 3110
- Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
circles / networks one is in differ and people tend to extrapolate their own experiences.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
actually, I'm completely disregarding my "personal" experiences here. I am strictly commenting on the US govt's behavior here, and the future projections of their behavior for the next couple of decades. anything beyond that is fishy at best and fraudulent at worst.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Actually, elites controlling the US have to contain every major power, including the US itself.Varoon Shekhar wrote: How does the US rationalise to itself and most of all, its people, the containment of India idea?
We cannot wrap our minds around this idea, so we remain handicapped in our understanding.
Sometimes an individual may show signs of a Jekyll-and-Hyde syndrome. Jekyll can appreciate the Indic civilization, but Hyde needs to contain everything.devesh wrote:all this knowledge.....why is it not melting away the hatred of the EJ's?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
"Varoon, Have you read the Sci-Fi Foundation series by Issac Asimov. Atleast read the wiki version and comeback."
Ramana, that's very interesting. I just scanned through it, will read it in more depth some other time. Are you suggesting that the conflict between the First Foundation and the Second Foundation could be seen as an allegory for a rivalry or conflict between the US and India?
Ramana, that's very interesting. I just scanned through it, will read it in more depth some other time. Are you suggesting that the conflict between the First Foundation and the Second Foundation could be seen as an allegory for a rivalry or conflict between the US and India?
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
just my 2 cents. i hope it sounds sensible.
both the civilizations are melding. US EJ influence will gradually go down as the demographics change. i think, long-term india/usa are headed in the same direction culturally. indians simply love USA and USA loves indian culture at many levels as i can see from my personal view.
i disagree that india/usa are at long-term conflict. maybe till now, but that may not be true in the next few decades. too much cultural cross-pollination has happened for the melding to be stopped.
it is no more an argument of who is in competition with who. we are outsourcing priests to european/usa churches for christ's sake. hare krishna temples are everywhere.
proper hindu temples are coming up smack in the middle of urban developments. gone are the days when you need to travel to some corner for a temple.
many americans i talk to are in awe of our spiritual/econimic machinery and the sheer genius of it -- it is recession proof !!
i think they realize it and we realize it too. now lets watch the physically conquered and the mentally conquered dance in a mating ritual for the ages...
both the civilizations are melding. US EJ influence will gradually go down as the demographics change. i think, long-term india/usa are headed in the same direction culturally. indians simply love USA and USA loves indian culture at many levels as i can see from my personal view.
i disagree that india/usa are at long-term conflict. maybe till now, but that may not be true in the next few decades. too much cultural cross-pollination has happened for the melding to be stopped.
it is no more an argument of who is in competition with who. we are outsourcing priests to european/usa churches for christ's sake. hare krishna temples are everywhere.
proper hindu temples are coming up smack in the middle of urban developments. gone are the days when you need to travel to some corner for a temple.
many americans i talk to are in awe of our spiritual/econimic machinery and the sheer genius of it -- it is recession proof !!
i think they realize it and we realize it too. now lets watch the physically conquered and the mentally conquered dance in a mating ritual for the ages...
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
The US has historically rationalized this using phrases such as 'maintaining balance of power in the South Asian region'.... Politically incorrect words like 'containment' would never appear.Varoon Shekhar wrote: How does the US rationalise to itself and most of all, its people, the containment of India idea? Let's say there is a large panel discussion in which the general public is present. How would this discussion progress?
This year, 2011, is the first time that selling the idea of paying off Pakistan to balance India or to attain the Af-Pak goal, is being seen as a lost cause. Would be interesting to see how long this sustains.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
India has a tremendous amount in common with the US minus its EJ crowd and minus its neo-connish foreign policy... But you are making the mistake of thinking history is linear and that the EJ / neocon mindset will disappear without resisting. No such thing can be taken for granted.V_Raman wrote:both the civilizations are melding. US EJ influence will gradually go down as the demographics change. i think, long-term india/usa are headed in the same direction culturally. indians simply love USA and USA loves indian culture at many levels as i can see from my personal view.
Since this is the PRC-US-India thread, I would also like to point out that Indians in general know very little about China and Chinese values. It is very possible that with greater knowledge of each other, India has just as much in common with China minus the CPC.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
i agree that we dont understand china. but what we understand is that they are spiritual followers. come on, even their shaolin stuff comes from a south-indian buddhist monk. they were under buddhism which they forcefully eradicated in the cultural revolution. now they have introduced western thinking sans christianity. they like this model. they think they have found something unique.
if you let indians in, we come in with culture. there is no other way. so they will never let us in unless they are sure spiritually, which they will never be as buddhism is owned by us and christianity by the west. so their unholy alliance with islamic bloc will continue to strengthen as that is the only bloc where they feel superior and does not feel threatened spiritually. as a perk, they also have oil/resource to take.
i think we have no other option. even if we tell china to take AP tomorrow and extradite DL to tibet, it will not solve their insecurity as it comes from the fear of indian spiritual influence which will never go away as long as india exists.
my 2 cents...
if you let indians in, we come in with culture. there is no other way. so they will never let us in unless they are sure spiritually, which they will never be as buddhism is owned by us and christianity by the west. so their unholy alliance with islamic bloc will continue to strengthen as that is the only bloc where they feel superior and does not feel threatened spiritually. as a perk, they also have oil/resource to take.
i think we have no other option. even if we tell china to take AP tomorrow and extradite DL to tibet, it will not solve their insecurity as it comes from the fear of indian spiritual influence which will never go away as long as india exists.
my 2 cents...
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Hu Jintao tells China navy: Prepare for warfare - BBC
He told military personnel they should "make extended preparations for warfare".
China is locked in territorial disputes with several other nations in the South China Sea. Political tension is also growing with the US, which is seeking to boost its presence in the region.
After Mr Hu's comments, the US said China was entitled to defend itself.
"Nobody's looking for a scrap here," said Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby in quotes carried by the AFP news agency.
"Certainly we wouldn't begrudge any other nation the opportunity to develop naval forces."
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
12th round of US-China Defense Consultative talks in Beijing.
They are the first ministry-level talks between the two nations since September, when Washington announced a $US5.85 billion ($A5.73 billion) upgrade to Taiwan's fleet of F-16 fighter jets, angering Beijing, which considers the island a breakaway province.
Ma is also likely to raise US plans announced in late November to rotate US Marines to Australia for training with Australian forces from an Australian army base in the Northern Territory, beginning in 2012, Chinese officers quoted in state media said.
Up to 2500 Marines, infantry units as well as aviation squadrons and combat logistic battalions, will go there from Okinawa or other Marine stations in Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific for a few months at a time.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Thanks for appreciation, Varoon. I'd be delighted if that story spreads.Varoon Shekhar wrote:johnee g, that was brilliant! I have already copied and pasted your article to my relatives and friends, hope you don't mind. It really lays out the situation wrt to Pakistan, India, the US and China.
Actually, I wanted to write a 'prequel' to explain the background. Maybe I'll write it up in a few days.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 9664
- Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Allow me to jump in too.
I am aware of the meme, for want of better word, that posits a conflict between the Indian civilization and the American civilization (pls dont contest the characterization, American need for it is clearly present). However I fail to understand why anything has to be extrapolated from history, and here i acknowledge the bitter moments too as do i acknowledge the testy American habit of trying to dominate. But I don’t see Indians getting pushed around, at least not for any length of time. India is mostly unmanageable for Indian Neta-gan what the .... would the Mallechas be able to control. Also while being pushy, Americans are nowhere near the English of last few centuries.
To my view, the Americans have come round to our view more then once, even though only after putting up a lot of resistance, like an insolent kid, but then kids they actually are. They are merely doing their Kid dharma. On Pakistan they understand they have a problem at hand, on China too they are only pushing us as much as our people are willing to pull (difference is basically Unnees-Bees ie. not overwhelming). In time we will gain more on parameters that they hold dear and at least the smart amongst them will begin to feel the need to branch out into newer areas, the kind that ensure survival, the kind that Indians hold dear. Just sometime back there was an Umrikhan who said something to the effect that they can take on the Chinese on their own. Yes ok but for how long. Chinese are not the garden variety Abrahamics, just as none of the other Asians are. Asian Abrahamics carry within them the germ of their Pre-Abrahamics past. Basically a half bucket. The kind that Chalkat jaye. But this bucket is Asian in scale and scope for which a 200 year old country, that is yet to prove it can survive a fall, simply may not be good enough. Do the Umrikhans really feel confident enough to carry the fight civilizational or are they betting they won’t ever fall. And mind you, the high horse the Umrikhans have decided to climb, they don’t stand a chance of coming down in time to save their slim se_y kamaria. Now on our part, what is true for Umrikhans is true for the Indians too, but with one vital difference. We can take it forward in time. We fear the Chinese for much the same reasons that the rest of the world does (including the Khans). Pakistan is just the preview of what is to happen on China front. Umrikhans will try to control it at first, then they will try to negotiate, then they will feel like stupids and just the way the Pakis want to do this or that to India, but can't, so will (or should it be so won't) the Chinese.
One forum member did point out the EJ, cat in water syndrome but seriously bhaijaan. EJ came, EJ saw, EJ salivated and EJ is mostly loosing its home ground the ground beneath its feet. How is Rs. 4000 cr in foreign donations designed to stop/hamper the Indians is really going to cut it if the damned desis take on to yogic/yojnic/prayojanic lifestyle the moment he gets his belly filled up. The Umrikhans are on definate road to becoming the next Great Britain, Cheena is threatening to be the next Paki and Indians are hardly going to leave their Indic roots.
Having said so much I do believe that our relations with the Agro-Khanis will be distinctly competitive something along the lines of Uropains. They compete for capital and ideas, as will we. Need i add that competition is not the same as conflict. Competition is their even amongst lovers
, but even enemies try to avoid conflict. More on that competition thingy later, with some other member perhaps.
phew!
I am aware of the meme, for want of better word, that posits a conflict between the Indian civilization and the American civilization (pls dont contest the characterization, American need for it is clearly present). However I fail to understand why anything has to be extrapolated from history, and here i acknowledge the bitter moments too as do i acknowledge the testy American habit of trying to dominate. But I don’t see Indians getting pushed around, at least not for any length of time. India is mostly unmanageable for Indian Neta-gan what the .... would the Mallechas be able to control. Also while being pushy, Americans are nowhere near the English of last few centuries.
To my view, the Americans have come round to our view more then once, even though only after putting up a lot of resistance, like an insolent kid, but then kids they actually are. They are merely doing their Kid dharma. On Pakistan they understand they have a problem at hand, on China too they are only pushing us as much as our people are willing to pull (difference is basically Unnees-Bees ie. not overwhelming). In time we will gain more on parameters that they hold dear and at least the smart amongst them will begin to feel the need to branch out into newer areas, the kind that ensure survival, the kind that Indians hold dear. Just sometime back there was an Umrikhan who said something to the effect that they can take on the Chinese on their own. Yes ok but for how long. Chinese are not the garden variety Abrahamics, just as none of the other Asians are. Asian Abrahamics carry within them the germ of their Pre-Abrahamics past. Basically a half bucket. The kind that Chalkat jaye. But this bucket is Asian in scale and scope for which a 200 year old country, that is yet to prove it can survive a fall, simply may not be good enough. Do the Umrikhans really feel confident enough to carry the fight civilizational or are they betting they won’t ever fall. And mind you, the high horse the Umrikhans have decided to climb, they don’t stand a chance of coming down in time to save their slim se_y kamaria. Now on our part, what is true for Umrikhans is true for the Indians too, but with one vital difference. We can take it forward in time. We fear the Chinese for much the same reasons that the rest of the world does (including the Khans). Pakistan is just the preview of what is to happen on China front. Umrikhans will try to control it at first, then they will try to negotiate, then they will feel like stupids and just the way the Pakis want to do this or that to India, but can't, so will (or should it be so won't) the Chinese.
One forum member did point out the EJ, cat in water syndrome but seriously bhaijaan. EJ came, EJ saw, EJ salivated and EJ is mostly loosing its home ground the ground beneath its feet. How is Rs. 4000 cr in foreign donations designed to stop/hamper the Indians is really going to cut it if the damned desis take on to yogic/yojnic/prayojanic lifestyle the moment he gets his belly filled up. The Umrikhans are on definate road to becoming the next Great Britain, Cheena is threatening to be the next Paki and Indians are hardly going to leave their Indic roots.
Having said so much I do believe that our relations with the Agro-Khanis will be distinctly competitive something along the lines of Uropains. They compete for capital and ideas, as will we. Need i add that competition is not the same as conflict. Competition is their even amongst lovers

phew!
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
X posting from Inteligence thread , What are our counter measures for this ??!!
China to open its first military base abroad in Indian Ocean

China to open its first military base abroad in Indian Ocean
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 9664
- Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.abhishek_sharma wrote:By Choosing Arms Over Diplomacy, America Errs in Asia
American saying.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Panda started worrying about India,for a change !! A music to all Indian ears !
Agni-V shows India's intention to become major power: Report
Agni-V shows India's intention to become major power: Report
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 9664
- Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 9664
- Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
From Ram N:
Disposable friends
America is baiting China, and India could get sucked into it, warns Ramtanu Maitra.
http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... asp?recno= 2237
Disposable friends
America is baiting China, and India could get sucked into it, warns Ramtanu Maitra.
http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... asp?recno= 2237
Washington, 28 December 2011: On 20 December, a trilateral dialogue between India, Japan and the United States took place in Washington. "These discussions, " said a joint statement, "mark the beginning of a series of consultations among our three governments, who share common values and interests across the Asia-Pacific and the globe."Japan' s foreign minister, Koichiro Gemba, was in Washington then. Together with US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, he "affirmed that Japan and the United States are deepening [our] strategic relationship with India"."Strategic relationship" is a loosely conceived phrase. The Americans notoriously use it to further their interests above those of others.The US media said the trilateral dialogue took place "amid heightened tensions between China and the Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and the Philippines over the issue of sovereignty over the resource-rich South China Sea". This implied the dialogue centred on US
concerns, dittoed by India and Japan, over the growing Chinese "threat' in the region.US president Barack Obama's pugnacious speech in Australia in November flagged such concerns. "With my visit to the region," he said, "I am making it clear that the United States is stepping up its commitment to the entire Asia-Pacific region."From next year, US troops and aircraft will operate out of Darwin to quickly respond to humanitarian and security issues in Southeast Asia which is at the heart of the tense stand-off with China. "It is appropriate for us," Obama said, "that the security architecture for the region is updated for the 21st century, and this initiative is going to allow us to do that."Analysts like James Holmes of the US Naval War College argue that today's strategic questions represent a throwback of sorts to the debate before the First World War amongst strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, ex-president Theodore Roosevelt, and assistant secretary of
the navy, Franklin Roosevelt, about stationing the American fleet. The three sea-power proponents agreed it should concentrate in the Pacific, said Holmes.Holmes says that situation exists today. "A glance at the map," he wrote in The Diplomat online, "reveals two prospective adversaries for the United States and its allies, namely China and Iran. Both worry mainly about managing their own surroundings. Both can mass forces close to home. Neither has compelling interests that disperse its military forces to faraway theatres. And the chances of their ganging up on the US Navy are remote."Holmes' prescription: The US navy must prepare to face -- or face down in crises short of war -- a single opponent fighting with full force near its own shores. "Cold War theatres like the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea no longer appear that menacing, while the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean could witness exciting times," Holmes concludes.Many walking
the corridors of power in India would like to align with the United States and identify China as an enemy. "Chinese perfidy" in 1962 and since compels them. They do not trust China and prefer the United States.US-India relations have changed greatly since the time president Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, considered India a "Soviet stooge." Now, Obama, to the great pride of the Indian premier, calls Manmohan Singh his "guru".In Bali in November on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit, Manmohan Singh confirmed to Obama that "there are no irritants between our two countries." And last year in New Delhi, Obama said the India-US relationship is "one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century".Even so, an Indo-US alliance against China is not a given, much less a trilateral partnership amongst India, America and Japan to contain the totalitarian behemoth. Australia which is key to a common front against China is keen
to upgrade strategic ties with India. But New Delhi is cautious not to provoke Beijing.At the same time, India has a much weaker constitution than it did in the years when it was staunchly non-aligned. Washington's China bogey could suck the Manmohan Singh government into a dangerous situation.
Ramtanu Maitra is South Asia analyst for the Executive Intelligence Review in Washington.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Moved the Karna posts to Indian interests thread....
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
US identifies China as security threat, seeks India partnership
Wow! A lot of distance was covered in about 2 years. From G2 to this!WASHINGTON: The United States is investing in long-term strategic partnership with India, the Pentagon said on Thursday in a new defence strategic document which puts Asia on a bigger priority and identifies China as a security threat.
"The United States is investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India to support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region," said the document unveiled by President Barack Obama in his rare appearance at the Pentagon.
The document titled 'Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense' identified China as one country which poses a security threat to the US in long term.
"Over the long-term, China's emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the US economy and our security in a variety of ways," said the eight-page document.
"Our two countries have a strong stake in peace and stability in East Asia and an interest in building a cooperative bilateral relationship. However, the growth of China's military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region," the document said.
The new strategy also replaces the decade-old policy of maintaining a force capable of fighting two wars at once.
"Even when US forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region, they will be capable of denying the objectives of - or imposing unacceptable costs on - an opportunistic aggressor in a second region," it said.
The document made clear that while some current military missions will be curtailed, none will be scrapped entirely.
"Wholesale divestment of the capability to conduct any mission would be unwise, based on historical and projected uses of US military forces and our inability to predict the future," the document said.
AP adds: President Barack Obama insists the United States will maintain what he calls the best-equipped military in US history despite deep and looming defense budget cuts.
In a rare appearance in the Pentagon briefing room, Obama offered the outlines of an overhauled defense strategy. It is designed to contend with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget cuts and refocus the United States' national security priorities after a decade dominated by the post-Sept 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama says the military will be leaner but promises the world that the US will maintain its 'military superiority" with fighting forces ready for any threat.
The president says the strategy review centered on the military the country needs after the "long wars of the last decade are over."
Last edited by pankajs on 06 Jan 2012 01:18, edited 1 time in total.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
So in three years it has moved from G-2 -> to long term security threat?
All this is chronicled in ths very thread.
All this is chronicled in ths very thread.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Ha ha! I did not see your post till I have made the edit. Both of us were thinking the same thing.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Devesh, see above story linked by pankajsdevesh wrote:before statements about being "foolhardy" are made, we should perhaps see for evidence that this is happening.....otherwise, we'll be chasing after delusional fantasies. I'll believe in the "enlightenment" of the US when I see it. till then, words like "foolhardy" will be used to make us sing "kum ba yah" with someone who doesn't want it, nor cares for it.....
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
I think this GWU Prof article should be read and critiqued for it shows that some US FP wonks want to do a Munich on India by appeasing the TSP monster.
Rethinking Pakistan plan
Rethinking Pakistan plan
....
In short, both the links between Afghanistan and Pakistan and Pakistan’s internal dynamics are affected by the India-Pakistan entanglement. This entanglement, in turn, is affected by the India-China-West relationship. Although at first it may seem far-fetched to argue that a promising way to break the persistent morass in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to reexamine Western assumptions about China’s course, this avenue might well be worth exploring in its own right and for the sake of all the parties involved.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Constructive US role in Asia-Pacific welcome
With the strategy sure to considerably reshape the US defense structure, the United States is welcome to make more contribution to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, but its possible militarism will cause a lot of ill will and meet with strong opposition in the world's most dynamic region.
However, while boosting its military presence in the Asia-Pacific, the United States should abstain from flexing its muscles, as this won't help solve regional disputes.
If the United States indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop, and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability.
Therefore, the United States has the greatest potential to secure world peace and stability, but it also has the greatest power to create chaos. With power comes responsibility, so the United States should exercise the utmost caution in the use of its military forces.
History teaches us that military intervention can't usher in lasting peace and prosperity in another country.{What about Tibet?}
Must say the Chinese know to fart with a straight face.After all, might does not always make right.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
China must assert itself despite new US strategy
BEIJING: China must not give up on its security presence in Asia in the face of a major US strategic shift into the region, a Chinese newspaper said on Friday, although US allies and analysts said China had nothing to fear from the new policy.
China, however, is concerned Washington's new defence posture, as it turns away from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is aimed at encircling it and could hobble its growing power.
In the first Chinese reaction to the US policy shift, announced by President Barack Obama on Thursday, a newspaper said China would "pay the price" if it retreated in order to appease the United States.
"Of course we want to prevent a new Cold War with the United States, but at the same time, we must avoid giving up China's security presence in the neighbouring region," said the paper.
The United States has said it would seek to work with China to ensure prosperity and security in the region but would continue to raise security issues like the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion dollars in trade sails annually.
The disputed ownership of oil-rich reefs and islands in the South China Sea is one of the biggest security threats in Asia. The sea is claimed wholly or in part by China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.
China is seen as increasingly assertive on the high seas, with several incidents in the South China Sea in the past year.
China has been expanding its naval might, with submarines and a maiden aircraft carrier, and has also increased its missile and surveillance capabilities, extending its offensive reach in the region and unnerving its neighbours.
The Global Times said that policy should continue. "The United States has made containing China's interventionist abilities at sea an important point of its change in strategy," the newspaper said.
The US strategy should make China "more alert", it said. "It's not necessary for China to develop a new strategy in response ... Apart from that, China should strengthen its long-range military striking capabilities and develop more abilities to threaten US domestic military targets," it said.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Pankajs, Its a PRC interest that US doesn't leave the area lest it leads to militarisation of Japan and the SE Asian countries out of fear of PRC hegemony. The game is everyone is afraid of the "other" big bad jackal and invites the wolf. For cneturies East Asia was in harmony with China as the hegemon but confined to its own land. Exploration and colonialsim has brought instability by bringing in outside powers to balance China. It did not help that China had its own politicial breakdown with the traditional dynasties overthrown and weak.
Modernism has revived the historic role of China but brought with it Communist Chinese grievances about past out of normal course of history.
Modernism has revived the historic role of China but brought with it Communist Chinese grievances about past out of normal course of history.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Containment policy of US towards the then Soviet Union has create huge distortion in Asia.
PRC is one of the byproduct of this policy and it needs to be corrected.
PRC is one of the byproduct of this policy and it needs to be corrected.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
I agree saar. Japan at least has the money and the tech.ramana wrote:Pankajs, Its a PRC interest that US doesn't leave the area lest it leads to militarisation of Japan and the SE Asian countries out of fear of PRC hegemony.
And in recent year have started to throw their weight around. The journey from we-2 to "Et tu" is because of tactical brilliance of the chinese. They forgot the Deng dictum “hide you ambitions and disguise your claws”. In a way it works for India too by hopefully keeping the chinese occupied in pacific.ramana wrote:The game is everyone is afraid of the "other" big bad jackal and invites the wolf. For cneturies East Asia was in harmony with China as the hegemon but confined to its own land. Exploration and colonialsim has brought instability by bringing in outside powers to balance China. It did not help that China had its own politicial breakdown with the traditional dynasties overthrown and weak.
I think the Communist over play their grievances to consolidate their position.ramana wrote:Modernism has revived the historic role of China but brought with it Communist Chinese grievances about past out of normal course of history.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Indirect effect on India as Noko will be the conduit for PRC to transfer to TSP....
Nightwatch, 10 Jan 2012
Nightwatch, 10 Jan 2012
China-Korea-US: In a recent interview, Professor Zhang Liangui of the Institute of International and Strategic Studies of the Party School of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and an expert on Korea said there is almost no chance of restoring the Six-Party Talks at this time and that it will be difficult to re-open the talks in future.
Zhang said North Korea issued a statement on 5 January declaring that the possession of nuclear weapons is the revolutionary heritage of Kim Chong-il and that the nuclear weapons will not be abandoned. The statement also said that it cannot be more stupid for people to believe so-called aid can be used in exchange for a nuclear deterrent.
Zhang said the statement appeared directed at South Korea. He suggested in fact it was directed at the US, among others. This is because, according to Zhang, its timing was calculated as a reaction to the visit of Kurt Campbell, US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, to China. During Campbell's talks in Beijing, one important issue that he discussed with China concerned how to restore the Six-Party Talks as soon as possible.
Comment: The NightWatch assessment for years has been that once nuclear weapons and delivery systems were described as the revolutionary legacy of Kim Chong-il, whereby he exceeded the greatest achievements of his father, they would never again be the topic of serious negotiations. Kim Chong-il identified nuclear weapons and missiles delivery systems as his legacy during his lifetime, at least six years ago.
The 5 January statement means that the Chinese and the North Koreans consider the Six Party Talks to be dead. It also signifies that aid for disarmament is dead as a strategy for inducing talks. Professor Zhang's interview represents China's effort to clarify the obvious for the US diplomats.
The Six Party Talks began in 2003 and were last held in 2009. In the era of the Six Party Talks to the present, North Korea reprocessed several reactor cores from the Yongbyon reactor to build its stock of plutonium for weapons; then shut down the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon and replaced it in situ with a modern centrifuge cascade for producing highly enriched uranium to weapons grade. It conducted two nuclear weapons-related tests and tested long range ballistic missile delivery systems, while continuing to export its technology to Pakistan, Iran and Syria.
After nearly a decade since the first talks were held, it appears long past time to declare the Six Party Talks strategy a failure and to search for new ideas for managing northeast Asia security affairs with a nuclear North Korea; find a new strategy and maybe bring in new people. The North Koreans appear open to new ideas.
A final point in Professor Zhang's interview requires emphasis. Zhang said that South Korean President Lee went to China to seek assistance in terminating North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The Chinese replied, according to Zhang, that their paramount interest is stability.
This means that the leaders talked past each other. The Chinese are reconciled to a nuclear armed North Korea, but will restrain it from actions that destabilize the peninsula. They will not cooperate in "denuclearizing" North Korea, the South Korean and US goal.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
De-nuking the Korean peninsula is Unkil's goal. India's goal should be a nuclear South Korea and Japan. The more nukes aimed at China the better.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 194
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Tejas, I wish that could happen but SokO & Japan are ‘colonies’ of USA. Our best bet would be Vietnam. We also need to make Cambodia our strong ally. However, the Chinese are already ahead of us – they are rapidly using their economic and political powers to further their interests in SE Asia.
Trade volume between China and Vietnam had reached USD $25 billion by end of 2011. China has become Vietnam's second-largest trading partner and the largest source of imports. Both nations are working to establish an "economic corridor" from China's Yunnan Province to Vietnam's northern provinces and cities, and similar economic zones linking China's Guangxi Province with Vietnam's Lang Son and Quang Ninh Provinces, and the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong Air and sea links as well as a railway line have been opened between the two countries, along with national-level seaports in the frontier provinces and regions of the two countries. Joint ventures have furthermore been launched, such as the Thai Nguyen Steel Complex, which produces hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel products
However, there are also serious issues between the two countries. In June 2011, Vietnam announced that its military would conduct new exercises in the South China Sea. China had previously voiced its disagreement over Vietnamese oil exploration in the area, stating that the Spratly Islands and the surrounding waters were its sovereign territory. Defense of the South China Sea was cited as one of the possible missions of the refurbished Chinese aircraft carrier Shi Lang, formerly the Soviet vessel Varyag, which began its sea trials in 2011.
Trade between Cambodia and China totaled USD 732 million in 2006. However, Cambodia has a significant trade deficit of USD 632 million with China as 60% of products in Cambodian markets are Chinese-made. China's Sino-Hydropower Corporation began a USD 280 million project to construct a 193-megawatt Kamchay hydroelectric power station - reportedly the biggest foreign investment project in Cambodian history. China's government and businesses have invested in as many as 243 major projects worth USD 925 million in agriculture, mining, oil refineries, metals, automobiles, ports, garments and tourism. The China National Overseas Oil Corporation (CNOOC) have sought to launch projects for oil exploration and exploiting of Cambodia's hydrocarbon reserves.
China's dominant participation in Cambodia's economy, its close cultivation of ties with the Cambodian government and the influx of Chinese immigrants has raised concerns about an anti-Chinese backlash from Cambodians, many of whom resent China for its support of the Khmer Rouge, which conducted a genocide that claimed the lives of more than 1.7 million Cambodians.
The Cambodian government's suppression of the Falun gong, a religious group banned by China, and extradition of 2 Falungong activists to China was criticized by human rights activities and the U.N. commission for refugees. China's influence is suspected to be shielding the pro-China Khmer Rouge leaders from standing trial for crimes against humanity. Suspected preferential treatment for Cambodia-based Chinese firms and the National Assembly of Cambodia's guarantee of profits for the Chinese investors in the Kamchay power plant has also provoked widespread criticism of China's growing political clout in Cambodia. We can and should exploit this situation in our favour.
Trade volume between China and Vietnam had reached USD $25 billion by end of 2011. China has become Vietnam's second-largest trading partner and the largest source of imports. Both nations are working to establish an "economic corridor" from China's Yunnan Province to Vietnam's northern provinces and cities, and similar economic zones linking China's Guangxi Province with Vietnam's Lang Son and Quang Ninh Provinces, and the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong Air and sea links as well as a railway line have been opened between the two countries, along with national-level seaports in the frontier provinces and regions of the two countries. Joint ventures have furthermore been launched, such as the Thai Nguyen Steel Complex, which produces hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel products
However, there are also serious issues between the two countries. In June 2011, Vietnam announced that its military would conduct new exercises in the South China Sea. China had previously voiced its disagreement over Vietnamese oil exploration in the area, stating that the Spratly Islands and the surrounding waters were its sovereign territory. Defense of the South China Sea was cited as one of the possible missions of the refurbished Chinese aircraft carrier Shi Lang, formerly the Soviet vessel Varyag, which began its sea trials in 2011.
Trade between Cambodia and China totaled USD 732 million in 2006. However, Cambodia has a significant trade deficit of USD 632 million with China as 60% of products in Cambodian markets are Chinese-made. China's Sino-Hydropower Corporation began a USD 280 million project to construct a 193-megawatt Kamchay hydroelectric power station - reportedly the biggest foreign investment project in Cambodian history. China's government and businesses have invested in as many as 243 major projects worth USD 925 million in agriculture, mining, oil refineries, metals, automobiles, ports, garments and tourism. The China National Overseas Oil Corporation (CNOOC) have sought to launch projects for oil exploration and exploiting of Cambodia's hydrocarbon reserves.
China's dominant participation in Cambodia's economy, its close cultivation of ties with the Cambodian government and the influx of Chinese immigrants has raised concerns about an anti-Chinese backlash from Cambodians, many of whom resent China for its support of the Khmer Rouge, which conducted a genocide that claimed the lives of more than 1.7 million Cambodians.
The Cambodian government's suppression of the Falun gong, a religious group banned by China, and extradition of 2 Falungong activists to China was criticized by human rights activities and the U.N. commission for refugees. China's influence is suspected to be shielding the pro-China Khmer Rouge leaders from standing trial for crimes against humanity. Suspected preferential treatment for Cambodia-based Chinese firms and the National Assembly of Cambodia's guarantee of profits for the Chinese investors in the Kamchay power plant has also provoked widespread criticism of China's growing political clout in Cambodia. We can and should exploit this situation in our favour.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
NVS in NewsInsight.net writes:
http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... recno=2252
http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... recno=2252
Life & death
US insinuations of a likely Sino-Indian "limited conflict" raise questions about India's strategic preparedness, writes N.V.Subramanian.
1 February 2012: By his statement that India is preparing for a "limited conflict" with China, the director of US national intelligence, James Clapper, has set the proverbial cat among the pigeons. "The Indian Army," said Clapper to the Senate select committee on intelligence, "believes a major Sino-Indian conflict is not imminent, but the Indian military is strengthening its forces in preparation to fight a limited conflict along the disputed border, and is working to balance Chinese power projection in the Indian Ocean."
As statements go, this is fairly accurate, although the timing, and an US intelligence chief saying it, renders it suspect. India is making preparations for a potential conflict with China, but a two-front war with China and Pakistan together is also on its mind. And while logic would suggest a Sino-Indian conflict would be "limited" (both are nuclear powers, drivers of the world's economy, and long wars between states in this over-connected globe is inconceivable), there is no guarantee it will be so. India won't provoke or commence the conflict. But equally, it won't permit a repeat of 1962, when China terminated the war when its object "to teach India a lesson" was fulfilled.
Yet, factual as it may seem, the timing of Clapper's statement raises more questions than brings answers. The US is not a neutral player on the India-China issue. Certainly, on the border dispute, the United States has not taken a position, or taken an earlier stand detrimental to Indian interests, especially in regard to Arunachal Pradesh. China is opposed to third-party mediation on the border dispute, and since that satisfies India's own position on the Kashmir issue with Pakistan, it has gone along. But the United States under president Barack Obama has re-asserted that it is a Pacific power, with huge stakes in the Asia-Pacific region, where it supports China's neighbours in their South China Sea dispute against the totalitarian behemoth. Since India has become active in that region to counter a growing Chinese military role in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the United States sees this country as a manner of co-partner against Chinese expansionism.
Governments often make statements to test the waters. Clapper's deposition before a US Senate committee could be categorized as such. When the Indo-US nuclear deal was in the works, there was diplomatic buzz about secret annexures that spelt out its anti-China orientation. It was far from being so. But China implicitly believed it (egged on by sections in the US) and turned hostile to the deal. In its hostility, it provoked Pakistan to demand a similar deal from the United States, and when it was denied, it boldly stepped into the breach.
In other words, the US could have a hidden agenda in making such a statement now, and the Chinese would construe it so. It may be that in its twilight hour in Afghanistan, the United States is forcing a commitment from India to partner with it in its multi-nation campaign against China in the South China Sea, but India won't be hurried. The harder anyone presses India to become an ally, the stronger its non-aligned impulses grow to resist it, and that is what will happen with Clapper's statement. Not only will India deny the thrust of the statement quickly, it would go out of the way to appear friendly to China in new ways, while doing all that Clapper says it is doing. India will not be dictated to in its strategic policies, least of all vis-a-vis China, its greatest adversary.
But substantially, Clapper has got it right, although the bets are off if China will repeat a "limited war", 1962-like, in the eastern and other disputed sectors. This writer's reasoning, as published before, is different. China may wish to inflict a "greater order of punishment" on India most likely in the Indian Ocean. While the Indo-Tibet border may suit Chinese hostilities against India to end the new uprising in Tibet (a Chinese victory being calculated to produce a setback for Tibetan nationalism), an Indian Ocean skirmish with India would greatly advance China's strategic goals. It would fit with the new mantra of "offshore balancing" and send a specific signal to the US that China has the upper hand in some of the most strategically significant waters of the world.
Whether India is aware of all these nuances is hard to say, because its military planning is services-oriented, hardware-centric, and does not flow out of a strategic vision. For example, deriving from what's written above, it would appear that a war in the 1962 territories would become very imminent if the Tibetan Buddhist uprising goes out of hand. A local war with a calculation of Indian defeat would greatly appeal to the Chinese political leadership as a way to tell the Tibetans not to bank on Indian support. An Indian Ocean skirmish, however, would have to meet the larger strategic goals of China.
James Clapper's Senate deposition, while provoking the routine denial or "no comments" from India, should nevertheless become the starting point for in-depth analysis of potential Sino-Indian conflict scenarios. Whilst the Indian military presumably does such exercises, that should not prevent the independent strategic community from weighing in with its objective analysis. It is a life-and-death matter for India.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Nightwatch commnets:
Somalia: For the record. India, China and Japan have begun coordinated naval patrols off the Horn of Africa with the assistance of counter-piracy mechanism Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE), Indian navy sources said. This is the first time that these three have coordinated in this fashion, though all have been engaged in anti-piracy operations for several years.
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
China tangled up in industrial espionage
Hot-button issues under the headline "Chinese government engages in industrial espionage to rip off US companies" are set to rattle relations in the run-up to the US presidential election after alleged attempts by a state-run group to grab a secret of chemical giant DuPont. The murky case has its origins in the explosive growth in China of the pigment that makes things "whiter than white".
Re: US and PRC relationship & India
Jhujar wrote:After releasing the news of India modernizing military against PRC now,
Pak's support for terror in India could lead to N-exchange: US
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/paks- ... 120209.htm
Support to terrorist activities inside India [ Images ] by elements in Pakistan's military and its spy agency could lead to confrontation between the two neighbours which has the potential to rapidly escalate into a nuclear exchange, a top American commander on Thursday warned. Admiral Samuel Locklear told a Senate Committee that little progress has been made with regard to recent confidence building measures between the two nuclear-armed neighbours."Support by elements of Pakistan's military and intelligence services for violent extremist organisations targeting India strains the relationship; this support has the potential to result in military confrontation which could rapidly escalate to a nuclear exchange," Locklear told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing to head the US Pacific Command."Current efforts at dialogue have yielded few concrete results on the core security issues, especially regarding the resolution of territorial disputes," he said in a written response to questions asked by the top Senate panel.However, he said efforts have provided each side greater insight into the other's positions."While progress is slow, the trajectory is positive and offers the promise of increased confidence-building measures," he said. The Admiral said the US can continues to work with Pakistan to take effective action against groups-based in Pakistan that advocate and actively participate in attacks against India. Responding to a question on India-US relationship, the Admiral said a close, continuing, and expanding security relationship with India will be important for security and stability in Asia and for effectively managing Indian Ocean security in the twenty-first century.Admiral Locklear said the once nascent relationship between unfamiliar nations "has evolved into a strategic partnership between two of the preeminent security powers in Asia."He said efforts over the past ten years have focused on relationship-building and establishing the foundation "for a long-term partnership". He said the strong ties between the two militaries reflect this.
Locklear, however, said India maintains its strategic autonomy.
"India is essential to achieving long-term US goals for regional economic development, security and stability, and wide-ranging cooperation to counter extremism and radicalisation," he said.The Admiral underlined that the priorities for the bilateral ties "should focus on increasing maritime security cooperation, expanding the military-to-military relationship, and deepening cooperation on defense trade and production".When asked by lawmakers about India-China relationship, Locklear said the current relationship between the region's two fastest growing powers, is complicated by a trust deficit stemming from China's longstanding relationship with Pakistan, India's defeat in the 1962 Sino-Indian war, and increasing competition for resources."The ongoing border dispute, trade imbalances and competition for influence across South and Southeast Asia complicate efforts to reduce the mistrust," he said, adding
How the Asian land disputes and border disputes are taken as an invite by the US establishment for enter the region and help in 'peace and stability'.
Indian sub continent region from 1947 till 1990s was a region of peace mostly with small wars in between.
Now the region is being given an image of " the potential to result in military confrontation which could rapidly escalate to a nuclear exchange,". "Current efforts at dialogue have yielded few concrete results on the core security issues, especially regarding the resolution of territorial disputes,"
How the image is managed with a defiant Pakistan and a trust deficit PRC. It is as if Pakistan and PRC are playing a role so that US can come in as role for guaranteeing of stability in the region.