US and PRC relationship & India

[abhishek_sharma]

Bull in the China Shop: The Obama administration is welcoming China's presumptive next leader, Xi Jinping. But how can it make good policy when the strategy is a mess?

[abhishek_sharma]

Book Review: A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia by Aaron L. Friedberg

[Christopher Sidor]

Pentagon’s Budget Plan Is Said to Get 40% of Cuts From Weapons Procurement --- Bloomberg Dated 11-Feb-2012

From the article

About $18.7 billion of the cuts would come from weapons procurement, according to data provided by an official who spoke on condition of anonymity
...
One project being canceled is $4 billion to modernize the C-130 transport plane
....
Mostly, programs would be delayed, such as postponing until after 2017 the purchase of 179 of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet. One Virginia-class submarine would be moved to 2018, and acquisition of 24 V-22 Osprey aircraft would be postponed.
....
The proposed weapons spending budget is $104.3 billion in fiscal 2014, or $21.6 billion less than projected previously; $112.3 billion in fiscal 2015, or $17.2 billion less; $116.3 billion in 2016, or $20.9 billion less; and $122.9 billion in 2017 or $16.8 billion less.

With these cuts, the claim by certain american luminaries that cuts in American defense budgets will not impact American posture and readiness in Asia-Pacific, is looking hollow. Further with this budget america will not be able to launch an invasion of Iran on lines of Iraq. All it can do is an encore of the futile decision of Clinton, who fired missiles from Arabian sea into Afghanistan, without hitting anybody meaningful. No wonder the current American administration is all about sanctions as far as Iran is concerned.



Further inspite of the 1 lakh reduction in US Armed forces what some people are saying is

The breakdown shows the Pentagon is cutting weapons more deeply in an effort to limit cuts in personnel and benefits, according to Todd Harrison, a defense analyst.

“Compare that to spending on military personnel, which accounts for one-third of the budget but is only taking one- ninth of the cuts,” Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said yesterday in an e- mail. “Protecting pay, benefits, and end strength is a higher priority than modernizing weapon systems.”

Makes sense, after all last thing Obama needs is more disgruntled out of work people before his re-election.


This means that India should not expect US to do the heavy lifting in the pacific against China. This off course assumes that China's economic might actually rises in spite of the European troubles.

[ramana]

Relevant post here. Explains PRC moves to develop north eastern China and its moves in Af-Pak in a wholistic manner. What this will do is revive the old Silk route in a modern way. A pan- Eurasian railway system will revive the old Silk Route. Thsi will be land based Eurasia as opposed to APEC which is sea based.


15 Feb 2012

China-North Korea: China announced it will invest US$3 billion in the Rason special economic zone in northeastern North Korea. Under the deal, by 2020 China would build an airport, a power plant, a cross-border railway and improve the port facilities in the North's Rason economic zone bordering China and Russia. The 55-kilometre cross-border railway track will connect Rason with the Chinese city of Tumen. In return, China secured the right to use the Rason port for 50 years.

Comment: The development of the Rajin-Sonbong (aka, Rason) special economic zone was a Kim Chong-il experiment 20 years ago. The location is ideal for trade because proximity to Russian and Chinese railroads would significantly reduce the costs and time of Japanese shipping to Europe. It never attracted investors because the area has almost no infrastructure. Plus, the North wanted investors to build the infrastructure as well as invest in the project. Thus it languished.

Chinese companies are prepared to make the extra investment as part of the national plan to develop northeastern China. They are undertaking projects of this nature in Afghanistan and Indonesia, among other countries. The aim in the Rason project is to pass on the costs ultimately to the Japanese shippers and consumers.

The timing of the latest update to the project obviously was calculated to coincide with the birthday of Kim Chong-il. China now has large economic projects on both ends of the North Korean border. The other is near Sinuiju in northwestern North Korea. North Korea's border areas are being developed as extensions of the Chinese economic system. North Korea has no other benefactor since relations with the South remain strained. That is tonight's good news on many levels.

Now tie this with the moves to take over Gilgit Baltistan. One Dutch schoalar had remarked about the POK moves early in the last decade. No one paid attention.

[ramana]

A fallout of the 2008 crisis and failure to revive the e-Con-omy.


15 Feb 2012

Special Comment: Our defense posture is also our intelligence warning posture. They rise and fall together, the way the US budget is put together. That means the risks to the US and its interests are increased twice: by cutbacks in defense capabilities and cutbacks in intelligence warning capabilities.

This linkage has been well known to strategic warning officers for more than 60 years. It has not been mentioned in the national debate over defense cuts. NightWatch advocates no budget position, but the linkage between defense capabilities and warning needs examination.

First, when the US defense posture shrinks, trouble makers perceive increased opportunities for mischief. Old poisons kept in check by the proximity of great power are released. At the end of the Vietnam War, the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia became less stable. There also was no peace dividend after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Thus, when US forces draw down, defense intelligence must increase vigilance, especially in volatile areas such as North Korea, but with fewer resources. Defense intelligence always sustains cuts with the rest of the Department.

Second, warning time contracts when US forces contract. Warning capabilities, especially warning time, are a function of an enemy's estimate of US and Allied power plus their reaction time and ability to respond. That estimates translates into decisions about the amount of national power a country, such as North Korea, must generate to prepare for war and adn the time it takes to complete those preparations. Preparation time and the extent and visibility of the actions drive US warning time and the clarity of warning of war.


{This has significance to India and neighbors behavior. Time and again, the warning time for India was very low when there is political instability in India and GOI infighting. 1947, 1962, 1965 and 1999-2001}

When Allied capabilities contract, the time and the actions the North needs to prepare for war also reduce. When Allied capabilities increase, the burdens of war preparations on North Korea also increase.

Variations on this theme exist in every hot spot and potential hot spot, when US forces are farther away or less capable. Intelligence warning capabilities always are tied to larger defense capabilities.

A third impact on intelligence is that human sources tend to dry up because the US is perceived as less able to protect them.

Historically, these effects have not been immediate, but they have always occurred. The lesson for warning officers is that substantial defense cuts by US forces always increase the risk of intelligence failure. The effects of US defense cuts on national security threats suggest that defense intelligence warning capabilities should be increased when other defense capabilities are reduced.

Recall in India the defence cuts of the 50s were followed by the surprises of the sixties and same way with the cuts in early 90s led to latter surprises.

The key is intel has to be augmented when there is planned force reductions.

[VikramS]

It was interesting to see the Chinese courts pull that stupid iPad stunt when their guy was in the US. A CPC style reminder to the US politicians, on how dependent their best companies are on the "Chinese Market".

They unveiled the J-20 when the US Defense Secretary was visiting the PRC.

Dragon is not afraid of periodically breathing fire, to drive home the message. This is such a contrast to the policies followed by the Indians.

[Cosmo_R]

An interesting perspective on western democracy vs. Chinese authoritarianism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

1. "whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.". Some hints for our own netas who see elections as an end in t

2. "In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old." Xi is wrong on this one: The first democratic country is India which had one person one vote from day 1.

3. "In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy." Shades of rampant regionalism, PILs agitations and 'hurt sentiments'...

4. "The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation." Not gonna happen in India for sure.

[Christopher Sidor]

An interesting perspective on western democracy vs. Chinese authoritarianism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

1. "whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.". Some hints for our own netas who see elections as an end in t

2. "In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old." Xi is wrong on this one: The first democratic country is India which had one person one vote from day 1.

3. "In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy." Shades of rampant regionalism, PILs agitations and 'hurt sentiments'...

4. "The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation." Not gonna happen in India for sure.

Funny how ignorant of history people can be. They have forgotten the Indian janapadha system of governance which were probably the world's first manifestation of democratic system.

[abhishek_sharma]

Obama and China's Rise: An Insider's Account of America's Asia Strategy (First Chapter)

Bending History: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy (first Chapter)

[ramana]

We started this thread in 2009 with Shyam Saranji's speech at the IHC where he talked about need for metamorphsis to transform India out of the clutches of this duopoly.

Here is his 2012 follow-up lecture.

TEXT

ANNUAL IHC - SUBBU FORUM LECTURE


Geopolitical Consequences of the Global Financial and Economic Crisis

Back to the Drawing Board


Shyam Saran

India Habitat Centre

April 7, 2012



Admiral Raja Menon, NSA Shankar Menon, Mrs. Subrahmanyam, Commodore Uday Bhaskar, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege for me to be invited to address you at this annual lecture.


Thank you Admiral Menon for stepping up to the plate with Dr. Sanjaya Baru having been suddenly indisposed.


At the outset let me express my sincere appreciation to the the India Habitat Centre and the Subbu Forum for once again sponsoring this event as in previous years. I am thankful to them for providing me a platform now for the fourth year running.


Each of my annual presentations since 2009 have retained the main title i.e. The Geopolitical Consequences of the Global Financial and Economic Crisis, though the sub-themes may have been different. I have not felt the need to move on the another title because, as anticipated, this crisis is not being dissipated in a hurry. It is still ongoing. It is still driving geopolitical changes, though its manifestations may keep changing. It is important not to be distracted by the symptoms, but to grasp the fundamental well-springs of the crisis, understand its underlying causes and how it continues to play itself out. Only then can we hope to succeed in overcoming it. Drawing upon my earlier presentations, let me outline what I see as some of the relative certainties and underlying realities that can now be discerned four years down the line.


One, this is truly a crisis of global proportions. It erupted at the very heart of the capitalist system, the U.S. and has rapidly spread to the entire global economy through the multiple, interconnected, increasingly digital and, therefore, virtually instant, transmission channels. As a result of these dense pathways which bind the world economy together, market impulses which flow through them, from one point to another, often tend to act in cumulative fashion, reinforcing rather than balancing each other. This is a different beast from the notion of a self-balancing, self-correcting “natural” economic order that has dominated thinking in the capitalist world since the time of Adam Smith. As these cumulative forces play themselves out, they exacerbate imbalances, as with the asset-price bubbles we often witness, and these now impact not only national economies but across the global economy. As India becomes increasingly globalized, its fiscal and monetary policies must be determined within the context of a complex and often volatile external environment.


Two, at the heart of the global financial and economic crisis is the massive and persistent fiscal and trade deficits in some major economies with corresponding surpluses in others. The U.S. and China represent the two ends of this spectrum. The global economy has several players and it is possible that, at any given time, some may be in surplus while others may be in deficit. But the global economy, in the aggregate, must remain in balance, that is, for every creditor there must be a debtor, for every exporter there must be an importer. The corollary to this is simple. If major deficit countries begin to retrench to rebuild their balance sheets, surplus countries will necessarily have to run down their fiscal and trade surpluses. Failure to reduce these accumulated imbalances over an extended period of time will only deepen the crisis. I have pointed out in my earlier presentations that the stimulus measures adopted by all major economies, surplus and deficit, in the wake of the 2007-08 crisis, exacerbated and widened global imbalances instead of correcting them. Four years down the line, we see little sign of the surplus, creditor countries like China and Germany, taking measures to stimulate domestic demand and imports. Their continued reluctance to do so, for political and social reasons, means that deficit countries will seek to restore balance by making their currencies cheaper through monetary easing. They will need to cut domestic expenditures, adopt austerity measures, and reduce their own imports drastically, through protectionist measures if necessary. These measures, taken together, will impose, on surplus countries, reduced exports, because of falling external demand, capital outflows due to interest rate differentials and lower income and employment as excess capacity, the result of high but unsustainable investment rate in the past, begins to manifest itself on an increasingly large-scale. What we are witnessing today is the beginning of this cycle i.e. the rebalancing of the global economy through measures taken out of compulsion rather than through deliberate choice. It is for this reason that I have argued that China faces as difficult a task of rebalancing its surplus economy as the U.S. confronts in rebalancing its deficit economy. And I believe that as China’s economy retrenches, as it must, the impact on the global economy and hence on India as well, may be as severe as the recession in the U.S. and other Western economies.


We should be mindful of the fact that just as it is politically risky for the U.S. to adopt the measures required to bring its books into balance, especially in an election year, the same is true of China, which has just entered its year of wholesale political leadership transition. In Europe, there is a similar situation. For the Eurozone to overcome its persistent crisis, Germany cannot continue to export more than it imports from its European partners. It cannot continue to draw assets away from deficit countries in Europe, while insisting on the painful restructuring of their economies. While this is clear to policy makers, domestic politics prevents the appropriate policies from being adopted. The Eurozone is in flux and its future remains in doubt.


The global economy, therefore, will continue to be in crisis for an extended period of time. The crisis will only be resolved either through extraordinary and sustained coordination and concerted action among the major industrialized and emerging economies, for example in the G-20 or through a series of measures forced upon the key actors by the inescapable logic of basic economic laws. There is no “exceptionalism” for any economy, neither for the U.S. nor for China or for that matter for India. This ongoing crisis has, and will continue to spawn unexpected consequences geopolitically. India needs carefully crafted and effective coping strategies.


Three, I had argued in my presentation last year that the two pivots around which geopolitics will play itself out are energy and maritime security. We are already in an energy constrained world and moving inexorably towards a resource constrained world. The events in the Gulf and North Africa are significant for two reasons: they affect the supplies and prices of oil and gas, 40% of which still originate from this region. And the Straits of Hormuz is a narrow corridor through which much of the oil travels in the direction of the most rapidly growing markets of Asia to the East. Energy security and maritime security have thus become interlocked in a complicated political transition that is unfolding in the region.


The search for energy security may create new threats of geopolitical competition, as they are already doing in the Arctic Ocean, in Africa and in Central Asia. The routes to consuming nations are mostly over the oceans and increasingly through pipelines, and these are vulnerable to security threats. A competitive military build up will be the response of the countries affected, in the absence of any structural and multilateral arrangements to mutually assure security. India’s security planning and its foreign policy priorities must reflect these emerging priorities.


Four, there is no doubt that the long-term trend is towards a steady diffusion of political and economic power, away from the trans-Atlantic, radiating in different directions, but with the Indo-Pacific region gaining the most in terms of relative weight. Here I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Admiral Arun Prakash , former Chairman of the National Maritime Foundation in advancing the Indo-Pacific formulation in the Indian security discourse.


Given the presence of India, China, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia in this region, it is easy to see why it is emerging as a new centre of gravity geo-politically. And yet this is the region which has several potential triggers for conflict, such as the continuing instability and tensions on the divided Korean peninsula, the unresolved maritime disputes between China and Japan and China and several ASEAN countries, the issue of Taiwan’s status and the potential for renewed military confrontation in the Taiwan Straits, which may involve the United States, the unresolved boundary dispute between India and China and, finally, the India-Pakistan conflict. Behind some of these unresolved issues are also the questions of exploiting potential energy resources and securing maritime routes. Thus even as the region is gaining in relative weight, it is becoming more vulnerable to conflict. This is reflected in the competitive arms build up which is taking place across the region.


Asia is the geopolitical centre as far as India is concerned, but its historical neighbourhood encompasses the region extending from the East Coast of Africa, to Central Asia and then beyond to East and South-East Asia. As India’s economic and military capabilities increase, its geopolitical footprint is likely to spread along these historical zones. Any long-term vision for India would inevitably locate its destiny within this extended neighbourhood. The global financial and economic crisis has loosened existing alliances and alignments. It has opened up spaces for India to expand its footprint as a major power. I see many opportunities for India to evolve into a truly global power, using its extended neighbourhood as the proximate platform to do so. This demands a sustained and accelerated growth in India’s economy, a stable and coherent polity and above all, a geopolitically aware and visionary leadership. We may be lacking in each of these aspects and, therefore, unable to leverage the opportunities that are constantly emerging as the global order undergoes an extended transition. However, I remain optimistic because in a plural and democratic India, change often comes from unexpected sources at unexpected moments.


That leads me to the sub-theme of my presentation today. Why do we need to go back to the drawing board?


My sense is that Indian policy-makers, like their counterparts in other countries, have assumed that the global financial and economic crisis, is really an unexpected departure from the norm and there will be, sooner or later, a recovery to an essentially familiar economic order, with some new and modified features. The fact is that there is no recovery to the pre-crisis state possible. The world which is emerging before our eyes will have very little in common with the world we left behind in 2008. In fact, the crisis of 2008 erupted precisely because we failed to keep pace with the very rapid and significant systemic changes taking place across the globe. An entirely different set of tools and a very different mindset are required to deal with what is already a fundamentally altered terrain. In this part of my presentation, I will outline only some aspects of this new reality and how India must redraw its strategies and plans for the future.


I spoke about our entering into a resource constrained world. This has implications for our growth strategy. To begin it, we must recognize that the ongoing financial and economic crisis, triggered by the over-leveraging of financial assets, is only a symptom of a far greater and more pervasive resource-crisis, which is evident in the over-leveraging of Nature’s finite assets. Deleveraging our claims on Nature is as important deleveraging our financial overstretch.


Taking into account the compelling and inescapable reality of an increasingly resource-constrained world, India needs to link the aspirations of its people and its prospects for accelerated growth to what I would call a “resource-frugal” instead of a “resource-intensive” strategy of development. I believe that such a strategy would enable India to sustain a high rate of growth over a more extended period of time, delivering affluence without waste, and current welfare without sacrificing the welfare of future generations. I will touch upon just a few illustrative examples.


The notion of frugality is current in some sectors of our economy and has been successful enough to attract international attention. “Frugal manufacture” is already acclaimed as Indian industry’s contribution to innovative production processes. This involves the stripping down of complex machinery or devices, to their most essential applications without frills. An example is the cost-effective, easy to use, hand-held ECG machine, which is a major contribution to public health. The other is the use of the mobile telephone to deliver information, services as well as funds on a low-cost and widely spread platform. Even in agriculture, there have been significant successes in promoting production processes which are dramatically economical in the use of water, dispense with the use of costly chemical fertilizers and pesticides or GM seeds and still deliver high agricultural output, ensuring food security. This is frugal agriculture. What should be appreciated is that these innovations, by making products affordable, lead to significant market expansion. This in turn brings economies of scale, further lowering of costs and generating even greater demand in a virtuous, self-reinforcing circle.


2. The hallmark of any modern society is its ability to deliver rapid, affordable and efficient means of mobility to its people. Enabling people to exercise their right to mobility is a critical state responsibility. However, mobility is linked to the use of energy and the use of scarce land, both of which are in short supply in our country. It follows, therefore, that we must have a transport strategy that ensures the most economical use of these resources. The continued expansion of private vehicular transportation is not sustainable. If the density of private car ownership in India were to approach U.S. or European levels, we would be using liquid fuels far in excess of the total consumption of all such fuels globally today. Just the space required for parking a billion cars and constructing highways for them to run on, would occupy land on a scale that would leave little space for any other activity. Therefore, shifting resources from private transportation to public transportation and investing in the latter to make them convenient, comfortable and cost-effective is another essential component of a “resource-frugal” strategy. Greater mobility ensures a more productive population and a more efficient distribution of goods and services. This is what can ensure a sustained and high rate of growth.


3. If frugal process is what India is good at, it can add value to each of the sectors of its economy by leveraging its proven strengths in information and communications technology. The systems which make modern economies run, whether these are the power supply networks, the transportation system, the distribution of goods and services, the water supply system, to name only a few, are being transformed through the use of modern data analytics. The placement of sensors at critical points in any economic process, generates massive and continuous mass of real time data, which high powered computers, using sophisticated software can analyse in considerable detail and propose what are called “smart” solutions. This reduces waste to the minimum, eliminates redundancies in processes and improve efficiencies all around. This, too, is an example of “resource-frugality”. Some Indian IT companies like TCS and WIPRO, are already doing data analytic projects for multinational clients, but it is India which can provide the biggest market for such value-added services, which can act as a multiplier across the board in a range of sectors in the Indian economy. What is important to appreciate here is that such services are really the hall-mark of a flat world, because they can add value in developing societies as they can in advanced ones.


The purpose of providing these examples is to add some substance to the overall optimism I retain about our future as a plural, democratic and innovative society, despite the seeming gloom around us.


This brings me back, in conclusion, to geopolitics. It is inevitable that Indians constantly compare themselves to China and despair at the growing gap they see between our overall national capabilities. We can narrow this gap, as I think we must, not by playing catch-up with China, not by yearning to be more like China. There is more to be gained by being more India, not China, in our strategies. Each of the examples I have mentioned responds to the new world which is emerging, and not seeking to re-create the old. What is more, each of these innovations enable inclusive growth because they empower the poor; they profit from leveraging the power of numbers. What we need is to upscale these successes from the margin to the mainstream, from the local to the national level.


Their impact will be felt not just in India but throughout the world precisely because they address what I described as the fundamental cause of the current crisis. If we can give a compelling intellectual shape to these ideas and reorient our economic and security strategies in line with them, India could lead by the power of its example.



***************

We need to understand what 'being more India" means to all Indians.

[svinayak]

being nationalists

[sanjaykumar]

There is more to be gained by being more India




http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/art ... le2394078/

Here is some wisdom from a"harlot' that would shame a number of gianis.

Her Punjabi parents left India more than 30 years ago to find a new life in Canada. Now Leone is back in the land she calls her “birthright,” seeking a new life of her own – and she’s a whole new kind of famous

[shyamd]

Shyam Saran is a great thinker and he is on the ball on the scenario externally.

If memory serves me right after posting his first article, Ramana ji rightly said - lets hope his ideas get implemented.

I think some of his ideas are being implemented - India was pushing for a BRICS bank in the recent summit although SS called for an Indian fund to help other nations. We need to move faster!

Everyone is re-orientating themselves for the post euro world - Gulf has withdrawn their Euro deposits and sent it to India. Several large firms are minimising exposure to Euro's. French banks have withdrawn their foreign ops to keep capital to deal with any fallout. The moves are being made before our eyes.

[pankajs]

x post
-----------
Taiwan welcomes US reconsideration on jet sale

[Lilo]

Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust - Wang Jisi, Kenneth Lieberthal

Full pdf

Supposedly a must read on US-China , i havent read it yet

Later edit:
Gist is, Deng Xiaoping’s 24 character axiom - “Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership” is now changing keeping in tune with china's "New Status" after 2008.

[ramana]

X-post...

Nov 2011 Keynote address by Ranjan Mathai at MEA-IISS-IDSA

India wants a Trilateral Dialogue in India-US-China framework.

Forging Stability in Asia

Thank you for inviting me to address the fourth in this continuing series of dialogues between the Ministry of External Affairs, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London and IDSA, New Delhi. My predecessors have spoken at these dialogues about the priorities and goals of India’s Foreign Policy. It is my intention today to build upon that foundation in order to examine, in particular, the future and importance of forging a new stability in Asia. I hope my brief remarks can set a tone for the discussion but it is not my intention to anticipate what you will be discussing in depth.

Sometimes it is useful to spend a minute on definitions. To us in India, Asia has always meant the entire continent, not just the Eastern part of it as seen from across the Pacific. At the Asian Relations Conference in March 1947, Prime Minister Nehru presciently spoke of a rising Asia……and welcomed delegations from China, Egypt and the Arab world, Iran, Indonesia & Indo-China, Turkey, Korea, Mongolia, Thailand (Siam), Malaya, Philippines, Central Asia (he referred to the Soviet Asian republics), all our neighbours, Australia and New Zealand. This is a vast canvas, and it needs retelling that India is in a sense a meeting point of influences of West, North, East and South East Asia. The theme of forging stability across such a vast expanse requires a look at whether Asia can be considered a single strategic entity. Perhaps not, despite decades of globalization.

Stability in other regions has essentially been forged by what we can call architecture; the creation usually by general consent, of structures of regional dialogue and cooperation. These arrangements help either subsume, resolve or put aside bilateral differences, within a construct aimed at collaboration on issues of general interest or towards achievement of a common vision of the general interest. The EU was traditionally considered the exemplar. After the recent East Asia Summit, the ASEAN is probably an equally good example of the search for stability through architecture.

We are supposed to be in a post-Westphalian world in which globalisation has reduced classical identity of States as autonomous entities. Recent events suggest, however, that the nation state remains the primary unit of international politics, and regional architecture cannot end competition among nation states; it can however moderate it through the quest for common interests. It also appears that requirements for stability do have a substantial constituency; even in an era of mobilized, politically active populations, the dangers of unrestricted competition are increasingly recognized. Also recognized is that multilateral constructs provide avenues for compromise that may not be politically saleable on purely bilateral levels.

I do not wish to ramble on on a theory of international politics. Your sessions focus on asymmetric warfare, stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and engaging a rising China. So let me touch on these themes within the overarching idea of stability in Asia.

Asymmetric war is actually war by other means (I say this with caution because this is a field for experts). But such war is possible because of the balance created by mutually assured destruction, or because of the difficulty of finding the appropriate targets to respond to. Hence state sponsored terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, that we best know currently. As the range and firepower of terrorists increases, the capacity of asymmetric warfare to endanger international security increases. The ultimate danger of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists needs the attention of all those concerned about stability across the globe.

Let me turn to the topic of stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This area is currently the focus of much of the world as the US and ISAF begin their countdown to the transition in 2014. Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the border between them, and in the regions abutting them are of vital importance to the countries directly involved; and the perceived outcome of the ten years’ war and reconstruction efforts (the latter to which we have contributed) hinges on the maintenance or otherwise of stability in these regions. The Istanbul Conference on November 2 sought consensus for an architecture, built on a concept of economic cooperation in a region stretching from Turkey to South Asia and Central Asia to the Gulf passing through Afghanistan which was described as the “heart of Asia”. This (along with political elements) would be taken forward at Bonn in December when one can expect to hear more on what US Secretary of State Clinton described in India in July, as the New Silk Route.

For a moment this idea transports us back in time to an era when the Silk Route was an important part of the relationship between Europe, Asia and Africa for several centuries. Extending some 6000 kilometers with mostly overland (but also some sea) routes, the Silk Route was not only important for the exchange of goods and precious metals, but also for the spread of ideas and knowledge. It was, in fact, a major factor linking the developments within the great civilizations of India, China, Persia, Egypt and Rome. There was no conception of a strategic interlinking of all these regions, hence the role of the Silk Route in maintaining stability is uncertain.

The metaphor of the Silk Route (by whatever name) could be a useful one today, especially for those seeking common structures to lock in the kind of common interests that can foster Asian stability. A new Silk Route in Asia seeks to highlight the synergies between us, and the acceptance of interdependence that has not only become part of our lives, but which could give us competitive advantages for intra-regional trade and in dialogue with the world outside. None of this will be cheap. There will be a requirement for deep pockets, but the outcomes could be very positive.

Nehru hinted at the idea of Silk Route earlier in 1947, when he said “one of the notable consequences of European domination of Asia has been the isolation of Asian countries from each other. India had contacts and intercourse with her neighbour countries in the North West, North East, and East and South East Asia. With the coming of British rule these contacts were broken off and India was completely isolated from the rest of Asia. The old land routes ceased to function and our chief window to the world looked out to sea routes which led to England”.

That we should be talking of “New Silk Route” even today six decades later, when there has been ample time to recreate old routes, suggests that political obstacles apart, maritime routes are, in fact, quite natural to us in Asia and must be part of any architecture we build. For us in India, the New Silk Route is another name for connectivity we seek to Central Asia and beyond. But with apologies to Bismarck, we are both a land rat and a water rat. If I were to look at the prospects for stability in Asia in connection with Afghanistan, I would add Iran to the list of countries needing to be discussed.

Security and Terrorism

Terrorism is now recognised as one of the greatest scourges of our times and a serious source of instability in regions across Asia and the wider world. Earlier in the 1980s and 1990s, it was easy for the outside world to watch as India went through trials of terrorist fire. Today, no one is immune from terrorism emerging from the same swamps that produced the terror groups targeting India. There is also a growing recognition that while India has suffered grieviously, it has preserved the values of democracy and secularism at home and acted with a great sense of responsibility abroad. Such preconditions for stability are less assured in other countries.

In a new emerging world, it is, of course, necessary to find solutions to terrorism, beyond the obvious, to understand the contexts rather than to give one- size-fits-all solutions. But concerted international efforts to counter terrorism and to pressurise those who provide them safe haven, must continue and become the norm in policy making. Institutional mechanisms of states must find ways to deal with subterranean and ideological regional groups, and the asymmetric warfare resorted to by some states. The CCIT at the UN is one place to start.

South Asia

In our search for stability we have tried to help Afghanistan in nation building. We have also engaged with Pakistan to maintain a structure of normalised state relations. There have been some modest successes as seen in the move towards trade normalisation. There is today, more successfully, a greater degree of stability in countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka. There has also been considerable progress in India’s relationship with Bangladesh in dealing with outstanding problems, including settling the border, security, sharing of river waters and increase in trade linkages. In fact, progress with Pakistan and better relations among and with countries in South Asia could leapfrog the SAARC region into a high economic growth trajectory.

The potential of the dynamic SAARC market is considerable with the Indian economy growing at a steady rate of about eight per cent per annum. With greater assistance to other countries in South Asia from India, I think we could create opportunities for inter-linkages for stability and economic growth. The destiny of South Asia to some extent lies within. SAARC provides a platform to aim for a higher calling even as we try to resolve our differences.

Central, West & East Asia

Afghanistan and the Central Asian region are not new areas for Indian engagement. India and Afghanistan are not just neighbours, joined together by history and civilisational contacts stretching over millennia, but we are also strategic partners. Our close relations based on cultural affinities, the shared values of multi-ethnicity and pluralism and the common quest of our peoples for peace and development have ensured that the relationship between our two peoples remains warm and friendly.

The strongest testimony of this is reflected in our reconstruction and development assistance to Afghanistan. Continuing aid and assistance to Afghanistan is a major strategy of our engagement with Afghanistan. This includes an important agreement for capacity building of Afghan working in a new economy, for the civil services and security forces. Whether you call it a New Silk Route or simply connectively through links of trade, transport and energy, the potential of the routes and networks that can emerge from regional cooperation through Afghanistan would not just be economically beneficial but confidence building measures. In the run up to 2014 and beyond, there will be scope for expanding the networks to link with other arrangements that we could consider after India’s full participation in the SCO.

West Asia

The upsurge that began in Tunisia in early 2011 has transformed West Asia. The changes set in motion in early 2011 still echo in the region: more regions are affected, more regimes have fallen, and among those which have survived, many have been forced to adopt new policies. Taken together, these changes herald an epochal shift primarily in the Arab world, possibly one of the most significant geo-political developments of the 21st century.

The rise of a new democratic West Asia will bring its own set of challenges and opportunities The biggest challenge to stability will be the creation of employment opportunities and satisfying aspirations of the growing young generation who believe that dictators have stifled their prospects. This will require governments and businesses in each of these countries coming together to foster entrepreneurship in a sustained manner, with international support. The EU, GCC, US and to a lesser extent Japan, Russia, China and India may have a role to play. But so far, there is no sign of a coordinated move to work to support democratic and economic aspirations of the people. We are doing our bit by being helpful with election management, training programmes, etc.

China

I think China has already risen, though it is likely to continue to rise. It is not just a cliché but a fact that we are likely to be both competitive and complementary.

As two of the largest developing economies in the world, India and China are significant engines of economic growth in the world. The promise of an India-China engagement is mirrored with China having emerged as India’s largest trading partner, with prospects of growth continuing and a bilateral trade target of US 100 billion dollars by 2015. Peaceful development of relations between India and China will also lead to the strengthening of BRICs at a time when large parts of the world in Europe and the United States are facing the heat of global recession. On global issues such as climate change, the need for a development dimension in trade negotiations, and reform of international financial institutions, there are many common interests between China and India.

Therefore, there is need for continued engagement with China across all spectrums, despite outstanding problems on the border issue. China will be an important partner in fostering Asian stability, and in ensuring economic linkages between countries that could work to dissuade conflict. There will, of course, be many balancing acts required.

India, China and the United States

The rise of China as a major economy and global power has implications for the world’s superpower, the United States. At the same time, the two countries are chained together by a shared economic destiny in view of their close trading and financial linkages. In India, we have been able to engage constructively with both China and the United States despite some ups and downs. An India that continues to grow rapidly and build its relations with both China and US may be in a position to participate effectively in, if not initiate, a trilateral dialogue between the three countries which could be a major factor of stability in Asia.
India and a revitalized Asian economy

Today, the global economy has several stress points. The world economy will take time to recover and the effectiveness of the initiatives taken in the Euro Zone remain a work in progress. Attention is increasingly focussed on domestic concerns. It is, therefore, possibly time to dwell on the concept of an “inclusive Asia” that could be the basis for a new Asian identity and stability.

Sometime ago it was popular to talk of “Asian values” and a new Asian outlook on the world. This has not proved decisive in the search for stability. A vibrant Asian economy will also involve the creation of a new energy architecture for Asia; harnessing technology and innovation for economic growth; and providing for the region’s infrastructure needs. It may be too early to say that for the stability of Asia, “it’s the economy stupid”. But clearly anyone who fails to see that the economy gives us the best prospect for working on an architecture of stability is being somewhat “stupid”.

The problem is US talks to PRC about India. When PRC talks to India its about mutual issues. When US talks to India its about opening up more for trade.

So looks like MEA realised the need to make all the players sit at a table and talk the same things.

[ramana]

Nightwatch on 4 June 2012

Even though the subject is Burma/Myanmar it really is a fallout in the relations between US and PRC.
Noko was supplying nuke stuff to Burma most likely under PRC watch.
With the ousting of the junta, NoKo assistance has stopped.

This is a good thing for India as Myanmar nukes would be targetted at India onree.

All along the cretins in MEA were supporting the junta and not supporting elections in Myanmar.

Burma: Statement by the Minister of Defense of Myanmar (Burma) entitled
Deterrence and Regional Stability: A Myanmar Perspective, delivered at the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore on 2 June.

"In our perspective, the acquisition of WMD is not a deterring factor anymore in this region. If the belligerents are in this region, the use of WMD will affect both sides, as well as their neighbors. And if one of the belligerents is a major power, the threat of WMD will not have any deterrent effect. Instead, diplomatic efforts at persuasion and exerting communal pressure will be more practical and effective. Reservation of political and economic measure to retaliate will be more effective. Thus, regional groupings, such as ASEAN, should have the political will to do so. On the other hand, close cooperation among regional nations must be conducted as an all-around preventive measure, because the reservation of means to retaliate is not as constructive a move as preventive measures."

"As I mentioned before, nuclear deterrence is not an option for this region. But we do have a Mutually of Assured Destruction (MAD) factor - one that is in the economic sphere. If our region as a bloc has the political will to retaliate using economic means, MAD in the economic sphere will not only affect the nations of the region - but also strongly affect the targeted agitator nation as well. In this regard, the prospect of strong domestic political pressure in their country will become a factor that will cause great concern among the politicians when they are weighing the opting of whether to undertake a risky and adventurous action."

The Defense Minister concluded,

"Regional Stability is a prerequisite for the 21st Century vision of peace and prosperity among the nations in our region


The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation is the norm, surprising the basic set of Law to be adhered to for the purpose of promoting regional stability


Nuclear deterrence is not an option for this region


Only an appropriate military strength should be maintained

The key deterrent factor against any agitator who wishes to destabilize this region is the political will to reserve political and economic retaliation against that agitator


Close cooperation among regional nations plays a most supportive role."


Comment: The most important comment is Burma's apparent decision to halt its nuclear deterrent program. North Korea has been assisting Burma is developing a nuclear weapons capability for the past several years. That is the context of the Defense Minister's statement, which suggests that Burma will terminate its nuclear program.

Commercial satellite imagery should be able to confirm a halt in construction at the nuclear site. Burma is North Korea's newest nuclear client. A termination of the Burma program would constitute a major reduction in North Korea's foreign exchange earnings.

The item can be posted in many other threads.

[Prem]

Few of the Poaq Nuke scientists disappeared in Burma few years ago, Lets hope Burmese still hold them and ready to deliver these terrorists to India.

[svinayak]

China

I think China has already risen, though it is likely to continue to rise. It is not just a cliché but a fact that we are likely to be both competitive and complementary.

As two of the largest developing economies in the world, India and China are significant engines of economic growth in the world. The promise of an India-China engagement is mirrored with China having emerged as India’s largest trading partner, with prospects of growth continuing and a bilateral trade target of US 100 billion dollars by 2015. Peaceful development of relations between India and China will also lead to the strengthening of BRICs at a time when large parts of the world in Europe and the United States are facing the heat of global recession. On global issues such as climate change, the need for a development dimension in trade negotiations, and reform of international financial institutions, there are many common interests between China and India.

Therefore, there is need for continued engagement with China across all spectrums, despite outstanding problems on the border issue. China will be an important partner in fostering Asian stability, and in ensuring economic linkages between countries that could work to dissuade conflict. There will, of course, be many balancing acts required.


The problem is US talks to PRC about India. When PRC talks to India its about mutual issues. When US talks to India its about opening up more for trade.

So looks like MEA realised the need to make all the players sit at a table and talk the same things.

Something is wrong with that kind of assessment of China.
China could tumble in the current global financial climate.

[kmkraoind]

US Exempts India—but Not China—From Iran Sanctions - CNBC

China, which alone buys as much as a fifth of Iran's crude exports, and Singapore, where much of the country's fuel oil is blended, did not receive such waivers, ramping up pressure on two important U.S. trade partners in Asia.

Wondering, why munna Singapore has been at receiving end, does US has the ability to bring down financial hub status of Singapore.

[ramana]

X-Post...
quote="shyamd"

Shyam Saran: A season of missed opportunities

In foreign affairs, reform and the Kashmir Valley, New Delhi is ignoring chances for long-term advantage
Shyam Saran / Jun 20, 2012, 00:37 IST


Since at least the middle of 2011, the global geopolitical environment has been changing in a direction unusually favourable to the pursuit of India’s interests.

Let’s take our adversaries first. For more than half a century, Pakistan has relied on its alliances with the United States and China to underpin its anti-India strategy. Today, the US-Pakistan alliance is crumbling under the weight of its own contradictions. From a non-Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) ally, Pakistan is today a non-ally on the way to becoming an adversary that needs to be contained. China continues to value Pakistan as a proxy power to constrain India. However, the internal turmoil in Pakistan and the growing threat of cross-border terrorism from Pakistan into China’s Xinjiang province are putting limits on the China-Pakistan alliance. A new situation has developed in our region, creating significant space for India vis-à-vis both Pakistan and China. It also strengthens the convergence between India and the US, whose calculations are no longer conditioned by Pakistani sensitivities.


There are gains on the China front too. Thanks to the aggressive posture adopted by China towards Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asian countries over the past year, there has been a strong countervailing reaction in the region. The US has taken advantage of growing anxiety over Chinese intentions by announcing its decision to reinforce its military deployments in this theatre. The uncertainties clouding the planned leadership transition in Beijing are inhibiting Chinese room for manoeuvre. China’s growth is slowing down, while its openness to foreign investment is being narrowed by its increasing demands for preferential technology transfer as a condition for market access. Add to this the stubborn persistence of ethnic unrest and violence in both Xinjiang and Tibet, and it becomes easy to see why China is on the defensive. This may be a temporary phase but there is no doubt that China’s pressure against India has eased. It is making an effort to present a more benign face to India, emphasising the points of convergence rather than divergence between the two nations. China is convinced that the US is building a containment ring around it, and so it hopes to wean India away from becoming a part of this.

The other side of the picture is the interest that the US, Japan, Australia and Southeast Asian countries have conveyed in an increased economic and security presence of India in the Indo-Pacific region, to balance China’s dominating profile. Rarely in the past have we witnessed an influential group of countries openly expressing a stake in India’s success and its enhanced power projection. This is a significant opening for India in a strategically critical region. This must be leveraged to our advantage even while avoiding a confrontation with China. I believe India has the diplomatic finesse to play this game with the skill and subtlety it demands.

This window of opportunity may close very quickly once the global and regional situation alters in the wake of political changes both in Beijing and Washington, as also in response to the direction the ongoing global financial and economic crisis may take. The trick lies in using a short-term opening to put in place long-term assets. Thus, even if – and when – the prevailing situation changes in a negative direction, a transformed ground reality should give India some enduring advantage.

It is, therefore, a great pity that precisely when unprecedented opportunities beckon, India finds itself preoccupied with domestic political and economic crises, which are largely self-inflicted. The failure to pursue second-generation economic reforms is a case in point. The political establishment in Delhi has become risk-averse. It believes that further steps towards economic liberalisation and eliminating long-standing distortionary policies, such as administrative pricing of resources, will be damaging to its electoral prospects. This is a costly misjudgement, which misses entirely the enormous social and economic changes that are taking place in India. There is an aspirational India out there, one that values empowerment over entitlement. Thus, in the remotest corner of India and even among the poorest families, there is a pervasive and compelling demand for their children to be educated. The young Indian in semi-urban and urban India wants more, not less, globalisation. He or she wants a share in the prosperity that globalisation has spawned rather than to turn the clock back to pre-liberalisation faux socialism. One sees insistent demand for accountability in governance, but this is less about acts of commission than about acts of omission and avoidance of decision-making. India is full of creative and talented innovators and yet both in the public- and private-sector procurement policies there is insistence on proven technologies, which, by definition, are obsolete. Innovators are right to demand recognition and reward. Political leaders and parties that acknowledge and respond to the aspirations of this changing India are the ones likely to succeed at the hustings, not those that still believe in the efficacy of one-off handouts at election time. Some political leaders at the state level have understood this and have successfully bucked the anti-incumbency trend.

The sense of stasis on economic policy is mirrored in the failure to use a favourable external environment to tackle long-standing domestic issues. Thanks to Pakistan’s preoccupation with its own internal problems, its compulsion to keep its eastern front relatively tranquil and, most importantly, the virtual evaporation of any pro-Pakistani sentiment in the Kashmir Valley, the time is ripe to take bold initiatives, not conditioned by overweening security imperatives, for a credible and enduring political settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir issue. The Valley is quiescent at present, but, as in the past, this breeds complacency rather than a sense of political opportunity to tackle the issue from a point of advantage and confidence.

The India story is still one full of hope and promise. There is latent energy and power that is struggling to find expression. Aspirational India has already cast its vote in favour of the politics of empowerment against the politics of entitlement. This holds true for both domestic and external policies. Will the political class see the writing on the wall before it’s too late?

The writer, a former foreign secretary, is currently chairman of RIS and a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

There is deep disquiet at CPR at how UPA2 has wasted the opprtunities to lead India to a better status. Pratap Bhanu Mehta has written on similar lines in Foreign Affairs latest issue.

What is happening is CPR is signalling the world that UPA time is up and change is needed for world stability.

[shyamd]

^^ Everyone (foreign and domestic audience) is venting their frustration at the lack of reforms, economic slowdown (the effect of which could have been reduced if Delhi would have gone through with the reforms) & I don't think it is just CPR.

Problem is if GoI went through with those reforms - opposition will cry hoarse and call marches (as they did last year) saying Price rise/fuel prices are hurting the poor etc. Bad economics is good politics as they say....

[D Roy]

Nope. As usual everybody is using the slowdown to make their own point.

it isn't about a new set of reforms, that's a bullshit red herring. it's about fiscal prudence and respecting exisiting reforms such as the FRBM act which enjoins upon the govt to remove the revenue deficit altogether and cap the fiscal deficit.

it is about something as asinine as instituting a retrospective tax on foreign fund inflows.

The list is long and it has nothing to do with failure to move forward on reforms but everything to do with a lack of focus on general government activities.

Allies/opposition are of course a convenient way to divert attention.

[ramana]

D Roy you are right. Its about bringing back sanity.

You should write more often.

[D Roy]

[krisna]

China’s Made-in-America Success Story

America’s strategy in Asia for more than a century has sought a stable balance of power to prevent the rise of any hegemon. Yet the United States, according to its official National Security Strategy, is also committed to accommodating “the emergence of a China that is peaceful and prosperous and that cooperates with us to address common challenges and mutual interests.” So America’s Asia policy has in some ways been at war with itself.

America’s policy toward Communist China has traversed three stages. In the first phase, America courted Mao Zedong’s regime, despite the Korean War, China's annexation of Tibet, and domestic witch hunts, such as the Hundred Flowers Campaign. Courtship gave way to estrangement during the second phase, as US policy for much of the 1960’s sought to isolate China.

The third phase began immediately after the 1969 Sino-Soviet military clashes, with the US actively seeking to exploit the rift in the Communist world by aligning China with its anti-Soviet strategy. Although China clearly instigated the bloody border clashes, America sided with Mao’s regime. That helped to lay the groundwork for the China “opening” of 1970-1971, engineered by US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who until then had no knowledge of the country.

Since then, the US has pursued a conscious policy of aiding China’s rise. Indeed, President Jimmy Carter sent a memo to various US government departments instructing them to help in China’s rise – an approach that remains in effect today, even as America seeks to hedge against the risk that Chinese power gives rise to arrogance. Indeed, even China’s firing of missiles into the Taiwan Strait in 1996 did not change US policy. If anything, the US has been gradually loosening its close links with Taiwan, with no US cabinet member visiting the island since those missile maneuvers.

China is thus very different from previous US adversaries. America’s interests are now so closely intertwined with China that a policy to isolate or confront it is not feasible. Even on the issue of democracy, the US prefers to lecture other dictatorships rather than the world’s largest autocracy.

Yet it is also true that the US is uneasy about China’s not-too-hidden aim to dominate Asia – an objective that runs counter to US security and commercial interests and to the larger goal of securing a balance in power in Asia. To avert Chinese dominance, the US has already started to build countervailing influences and partnerships, without making any attempt to contain China.

The lesson is clear: The muscle-flexing rise of a world power can strengthen the strategic relevance and role of a power in relative decline. Barely a decade ago, the US was beginning to feel marginalized in Asia, owing to several developments, including China’s “charm offensive.” But now America has returned firmly to center stage. South Korea has beefed up its military alliance with the US; Japan has backed away from an effort to persuade the US to move its Marine base out of Okinawa; Singapore has allowed the US Navy to station ships; Australia is hosting US Marine and other deployments; and India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, among others, have drawn closer to the US as well.

But no one should have any illusions about US policy. Despite America’s “pivot” to Asia, it intends to stick to its two-pronged approach: seek to maintain a balance of power with the help of strategic allies and partners, while continuing to accommodate a rising China.

[Agnimitra]

X-posting from Saudi thread:

Older news from this Jan:
Saudi Arabia, China Sign Nuclear Cooperation Pact

[svinayak]

http://carnegieendowment.org/1997/01/20 ... e=Thailand

What China Knows That We Don't: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment
Robert Kagan
Weekly Standard, January 20, 1997

inShare.Email More
GoogleFavoritesDiggDeliciousResources Print Page When President Clinton abandoned his 1992 campaign pledge to get tough with China, he quickly settled into that comfortable, bipartisan consensus of policymakers, politicians, Sinologists, and journalists who have long supported a policy of "engagement" with China. "Nothing is more important than integrating the rising power of China as a responsible member of the international system," writes Joseph S. Nye, Jr., until recently a top defense official in the Clinton administration. Bush State Department official Robert B. Zoellick agrees with Nye: "The challenge," Zoellick writes in the latest issue of the National Interest, "is to demonstrate to [China] that it will benefit from integration within regional and global systems."

The advocates of engagement -- whom we might call "the new China hands" -- offer a host of sunny assumptions about China's future and the helpful role the United States can play in shaping it. China wants to join our international order, the theory goes, or at least can be persuaded to play a responsible role in the world if only we help China's leaders understand what's good for them. By engaging with China, Nye argues, we can "affect how the Chinese define [their] interest." And as the Chinese come to view the world within the "larger context" we provide for them, "the prospects for conflict [will] diminish." China, Zoellick believes, "should welcome regional stability and the avoidance of contests for dominance

[nakul]

^^^

My summary:

China wants to be no1. USA does not want to relinquish its position. Similar thing happened with Britain & Germany in 1900. The result was war. The million dollar question is whether USA will co-operate with China to make it no1? Unlikely IMHO.

[svinayak]

They are together to contain other countries in Asia if you have observed carefully. PRC is used as a pivot in asia by US in the asian landmass. First against Soviet Union and allowed it to grab Tibet. PRC has been allowed to steal technology and upgrade its military for the last 40 years without any constraints

[nakul]

The USA will allow PRC to do whatever it wants as long as the USA itself is not harmed. So PRC can do whatever it wants to other countries. The red line is US interests. The PRC US tango is a result of PRC trying to squeeze things from over the red line towards itself. It is safe as long as it stays on its side of the line.

There is no doubt that US will allow China to reach no2 but keep it from no1 which it reserves for itself. Its policy is simple -- You guys battle it out for no2, no3, no4... positions. The no1 is not for grabs.

[svinayak]

It is not simple. Here No1 and No2 join together to kill no3
no3 could be a potential big with large pop and large economy

[nakul]

Its more like no1 does not bother with no2 killing no3 as long as it serves no1's interests. Killing a potential threat to no1 is acceptable. Thats why Indian politcos go to great lengths to project ourselves as not a threat to no1. The last threat to no1 ended up breaking into several countries.

[vasu raya]

Nakul, no1 isn't a back bencher watching, they are very proactive by planning for at least 1 or 2 decades out

[nakul]

They will go to any length to preserve their position. Most people say that a fight between the no2 & no3 will benefit them. They can also arrange teams to bring down any threat to their no1 position.

[shyam]

No1 makes sure that No2 remains No2 and doesn't become No3.

[svinayak]

Even now it is not understood.
No1 and No2 are secretly colluding so that No3 and others will never rise up

[nakul]

No1 is preventing No2 & No3 from rising up. For preventing no2, it will collude with no3. For preventing no3, it will collude with no2. Different opponents call for different tactics. Similar tactics are used for others to prevent them from threatening no1. Its all about retaining your no1 status.

[ramana]

Three articles from Indo-US dialog. Will comment on the big picture:

Messages
1
Ties with US a great priority for India: Krishna
Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:41 am (PDT) .
Ties with US a great priority for India: Krishna
Washington, Sep 29, 2012 (IANS)

http://www.deccanhe rald.com/ content/281855/ ties-us-priority -india-krishna. html

Describing the US as an important partner in its development efforts, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna has said for India, it will remain "a relationship of great priority and importance" in the 21st century.

"As we look at the priorities for India's foreign policy in the decades ahead, we see not only convergence of interests with the United States, but also a belief in the importance of a strong partnership between our two great democracies in achieving our shared goals," he said Friday.

"It is this recognition that has led to an extraordinary political investment in the two countries in transforming India-US relations and in establishing a durable and broad-based framework of a global strategic partnership, " Krishna said.

He was speaking on "India's Foreign Policy Priorities for the 21st Century" at the launch of the "Brown-India Initiative" at Brown University, an American private Ivy League research university in Providence, Rhode Island.

An interdisciplinary hub for the study of contemporary India, the initiative aims to produce first-rate academic research, and to contribute to public discourse on, and in, India through talks, events, and the convergence of figures from diverse walks.

{U Penn CAsI was an early starter. So now US wants India to participate in the study of India and DIE are willing participants!}

Krishna said the success of India-US partnership will not only contribute to the prosperity in the two countries, but, in a world of great flux and diversity, it will be a model of international partnership and a factor of global and regional peace, security and stability.

"For India, it will remain a relationship of great priority and importance in the 21st century," he said. Another key priority for India, Krishna said would be to "seek to further reform multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, including the Security Council, World Bank and IMF to reflect contemporary realities and to improve their ability to address new challenges".

But the foremost priority of India's foreign policy will be to create a favourable external environment for the pursuit of collective prosperity and the individual welfare of all the Indian people, Krishna said.

"Our foreign policy will, therefore, be an instrument of our development, but also a vehicle to fulfil our global responsibilities, " he said. Another major priority for India's foreign policy will be the creation of an area of peace and prosperity in South Asia, Krishna said noting for more than three decades the north-western parts of the subcontinent have seen much turbulence, and conflict has affected not only India but the entire world.

"Our vision seeks political stability, economic modernization and regional integration of the region," he said. "This will enable India to reconnect more closely with Central Asia, and also contribute to stability and prosperity in inter-linked South and Central Asian regions," Krishna said.


Nyayamurti
Moderator
IndiaUSDialogue@ yahoogroups. com


India grinds in the US pivot By Ninan Koshy
Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:41 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"n m" nyayamurti1
India grinds in the US pivot
By Ninan Koshy

http://www.atimes. com/atimes/ South_Asia/ NI25Df01. html

The January 2012 Pentagon document on Strategic Guidance, entitled "Sustaining Global Leadership: Priorities for Twenty First Century," has inaugurated a new cold war in the Asia-Pacific region between the United States and China. The document affirms that the United States will of necessity rebalance, or "pivot," towards the Asia-Pacific region. The goal of the rebalancing - American "global leadership" - is a fancy name for empire, maintained by military superiority.

The document gives a prominent place for India in the US strategy, which came as a surprise to many observers. While India is singled out with specific reference to strategic partnership, long-standing allies such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea are clubbed together under "existing alliances." In his maiden visit to India in the first week of May, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta piled on, calling defense cooperation with India "a linchpin in US strategy" in Asia.

In what may be called cartographic diplomacy, the United States is keen to show that there is geostrategic and even territorial convergence between the United States and India in the region. The January Strategic Guidance document, for example, refers specifically to "the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean and South Asia." In a November 2011 article for Foreign Policy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defined the Asia-Pacific as stretching "from the Indian subcontinent to the Western shores of the Americas.

The region spans two oceans - the Pacific and the Indian - that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy." It is interesting to note the inclusion of South Asia in the geographic area of the Asia-Pacific pivot. South Asia has generally been considered a distinct strategic sub-region of Asia, one the United States apparently intends to integrate into its strategy for the broader continent.

The United States has been exhorting India to move from its "Look East" policy to an "Act East" policy. Washington expects India to go beyond forging bilateral relations with countries in the region and to get involved in their critical issues. This, the United States believes, is essential for the integration of the Asia-Pacific region under a US umbrella.

{Rabinder Singh's defection makes sense}

Towards a military alliance

While India has provided assistance to the United States in Afghanistan and continued defense cooperation on other fronts, the two countries have operated under a formal framework only since 2005. An agreement signed that year proclaimed that the two countries were entering a new era and transforming their relationship to reflect their "common principles and shared national interests".

It underlined that the countries' defense relationship was the most important component of the larger strategic partnership, entailing new joint military exercises, exchanges, and multinational operations. The major component is an expansion of "defense transactions, not as ends in and of themselves but as a means to strengthen our security, reinforce our strategic partnership, [and] achieve greater interaction between our defense establishments" .

From the outset of this new stage, it was evident that what the United States wanted was a military alliance. Ambassador Robert D Blackwill, at the end of his New Delhi assignment in May 2003, said that the ultimate strategic objective was to have an Indian military that was capable of operating effectively alongside its American counterpart in future joint operations.

This framework was the basis of the nuclear deal between India and the United States that gave India de facto recognition as a nuclear-armed state, which was announced just weeks afterward. A series of defense-related agreements followed in 2007.

Although India remains unwilling at this juncture to sign pending defense agreements that might be construed as opening the door for an official military alliance with the United States, there has been considerable progress on US-India arms transactions. The United States has bagged the largest number of arms contracts - about $8 billion worth in the last five years - despite its stringent and intrusive end use monitoring requirements. India has fundamentally reoriented its defense procurement, moving away from its traditional reliance on Russia. In fact, nearly half the value of all Indian defense deals in recent years has been in US transactions alone.

Naval cooperation

In addition to a booming arms trade, India and the United States have conducted more than 50 joint military exercises in the past seven years. Against this, India's joint exercises with other countries appear to be mere tokens.

Military-to- military relations have especially deepened in the realm of naval cooperation. The US and Indian navies have cooperated operationally on four separate occasions: in the Strait of Malacca after 9/11, in disaster relief efforts after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004-2005, in a non-combative evacuation operation in Lebanon in 2006, and counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden since 2008.

In December 2001, the two countries reached an agreement on naval cooperation to secure the maritime routes between the Suez Canal and the Malacca Straits known as "chokepoints. " During the US invasion of Afghanistan, naval ships were provided by India to safeguard US non-combatant and merchant ships transiting the Straits of Malacca, which freed US naval ships for service off the coast of Pakistan. This has been officially acknowledged by Washington as a contribution by India to the "war on terror".

India was also one of the very few countries to join the "core group" set up by Washington in the wake of the 2004-2005 Indian Ocean tsunami. The "core group" was actually a Pentagon plan to assess the geo-strategic implications of the tsunami and to gain the US military access to areas where it had not previously been permitted. It was disbanded because of sharp criticism from the United Nations and European nations like France.

But India is apparently not the only South Asian nation being courted by the United States. The Times of India reported in June that Washington is in the process of stationing a naval base in Chittagong, Bangladesh. "Worried by the increasing presence of Chinese naval bases in the South China Sea," the paper reported, "America now eyes a counter-strategy as it wants an overall presence in Asia - right from Japan to the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean."

The Bangladeshi government has denied the report, but if it's true, it could cast a shadow on India's own security strategy and on US-Indian naval cooperation. However, such an initiative would be perfectly in tune with Washington's ongoing quest for more naval facilities in the region.

Problems in the neighborhood

Although Obama administration officials have often stated that the so-called "pivot" is not aimed at any particular country, the Strategic Guidance document admits that it concerns at least in part the growing influence of China. Happy to avail itself of US military technology but reluctant to raise tensions with its sometime rival, India is understandably cautious about aligning too closely with the United States against China.

That is why, in response to Panetta's overtures, Indian Defense Minister A K Antony emphasized "the need to strengthen multilateral security architecture in Asia and move to a pace comfortable to all countries concerned".

It did not go unnoticed that on exactly the same dates Panetta was in New Delhi, India's Foreign Minister S M Krishna was in China affirming the Sino-Indian bilateral relationship as a priority for India's foreign policy and expressing India's desire to expand strategic cooperation with China. Likewise, several statements have appeared with claims by US and Chinese leaders that they are committed to collaborating on security in South Asia.

India has a host of problems with China in South Asia. These include increasingly strident Chinese claims on Indian territory, the lack of any progress in border negotiations, China's nuclear links with Pakistan, and China's support for the Pakistani position on Kashmir.The United States' silence on these matters has given the impression, albeit indirectly, that it supports the Chinese positions.

Against this background, a strong case can be made for India to remain non-aligned in the new cold war. But there is perceptible resistance from the establishment to such an idea. Although India may not want to be described as the "linchpin" of the US pivot, the present leadership will nonetheless reassure Washington that it broadly supports US policies abroad, including in the Asia-Pacific.

Ninan Koshy is a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.


Nyayamurti
Moderator
IndiaUSDialogue@ yahoogroups. com


China starts a new gambit in east Asia by Nayan Chanda
Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:01 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"n m" nyayamurti1
Nyayamurti Comments:

1. The real test of India-US strategic relationship would be GOTUS's willingness to sell an aircraft carrier to India replacing Russia as the main but reluctant supplier.
2. Joint co-production of ten aircraft carriers over next twenty years in Indian docks needs to be considered for a long term strategic relationship between the two democracies.
3. India would be glad to collaborate on this issue with the US considering the "Admiral Gorshkov" fiasco!
4. China's naval power projection can not be stopped by the US alone, despite her 14 aircraft carriers.

5. This is the time for the US to wise up and remove all technology restrictions and remaining sanctions against India.

China starts a new gambit in east Asia
Nayan Chanda | Sep 29, 2012, 12.00AM IST

http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/home/ opinion/edit- page/China- starts-a- new-gambit- in-east-Asia/ articleshow/ 16593191. cms

The tussle over sovereignty in the East Asian waterways took a new turn this week with the formal commissioning of the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier. The fact that the 55,000-ton ship does not yet have even one airplane on its deck provides little comfort to China's regional neighbours. More than its potential power projection capabilities, the Liaoning bears an unmistakable message: we are big and we'll ensure that what we claim becomes ours.
If ever there was hope that mutual concessions and compromise could resolve the festering territorial disputes, the commissioning of the Liaoning squashes that possibility in the short term. China, though, would be wise not to count on clinching its territorial claims just by ship-borne aviation.
While China's defence ministry blandly claimed that the aircraft carrier would help to "effectively protect national sovereignty, security and development interests", others were more specific about its immediate operational value. A Chinese navy officer quoted in the official People's Daily said that the carrier would play "an important role in China's settlement of islands disputes" - meaning both Senkaku/Diaoyu and the South China Sea.
One has to discount some of the chest thumping at this time, coming as it does weeks before the once in a decade leadership transition. The party is always keen to remind citizens on such occasions that, under its guidance, the country is strong and ready to defend its sovereignty. Pointedly, Beijing published its white paper on the Diaoyu islands asserting them "an inherent territory of China" on the same day as the aircraft carrier was ceremoniously handed over to the PLA Navy.
The commissioning of the refurbished Ukrainian-made aircraft carrier, delivered in 2002, has been a long time coming. The Chinese media blitz on the occasion of the long-awaited launch is designed to impress Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines about the futility of challenging China. Right now, the Liaoning might simply be a troop carrier and a floating logistical base, but the nature of the Chinese punch will change once fighter planes begin operating from its flight deck.
The commander of the Chinese naval operation that snatched one of the islands from Vietnam in 1988 was quoted as saying, "During the Spratly Sea Battle, the thing we feared most was not Vietnam's surface vessels, but rather their aircraft." The establishment of airstrips on the Spratly islands under Chinese control has already improved Chinese capability. The admiral said, "If China's aircraft carrier enters service relatively soon, and training is well-established, this will solve a major problem. We will seize air superiority; Vietnamese aircraft will not dare to take off."
China hopes that by demonstrating its aircraft carrier - something that Japan does not have (and cannot have under its peace constitution) - it will dissuade Japan from resisting China militarily. But whether it is Japan or Vietnam, China would be mistaken to think that a mere show of power would force its neighbours to accept its claims and give up what they equally consider their sovereign territory. There are many practical hurdles on the way to achieving the military dominance Chinese strategists hope for.
Even after J-15 fighters modelled on the Russian Su 33 carrier fighter are eventually introduced into service, it would take many years of sea trials for the ship to be fully operational. So far, the aircraft have been practising short landing and take-off on land. US Naval War Collegeprofessor Andrew Erickson calls the Liaoning a "starter carrier" for an ambitious great power.
The Chinese navy will now have to learn the complexities of operating such a gigantic system. It will also have to focus on how to protect it from the increasingly capable anti-ship weapons being acquired by neighbours such as Vietnam. Erickson notes that Hanoi is due to take delivery of its first Russian Kilo-class diesel attack submarine by the end of 2012. As to Japan, China has to consider not only Japan's formidable military power but also the overwhelming naval might brought to bear by its allies in the US Seventh Fleet.
At the end of the day, Liaoning may not be the game changer Chinese media make it out to be. But as a powerful symbol of Beijing's intentions it is a new worry floating on the horizon.

Nyayamurti
Moderator

[Prem]

Can U.S. Universities Stay on Top? India and China are still far behind in elite education, but they are scrambling to catch up.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 56170.html

At the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi—one of the best engineering academies in the country—we met Shriram, a 21-year-old man who ranked 19 out of 485,000 on the school's very demanding entrance exam. We call him Mr. Number 19.
Shriram can tell you the date and time when he found out his test results. The exam—and the preparation for it—dominated his teenage years. He was singled out as a "big talent" at an early age, with an aptitude for mathematics and science. To get ready for the IIT entrance exam, he enrolled at a private coaching institute that prepares students with aggressive drilling in the major testing areas—physics, chemistry and math. Over those two years, Shriram estimates that he studied 90 hours every week.Both India and China have intense national testing programs to find the brightest students for their elite universities. The competition, the preparation and the national anxiety about the outcomes make the SAT testing programs in the U.S. seem like the minor leagues. The stakes are higher in China and India. The "chosen ones"—those who rank in the top 1%—get their choice of university, putting them on a path to fast-track careers, higher incomes and all the benefits of an upper-middle-class life. The U.S. and the U.K. are ranked first and second, driven by raw spending, their dominance in globally ranked universities and engineering graduation rates. China ranks third and India fifth, largely on enrollment (Germany is fourth). The reasons for U.S. supremacy are clear: For one, it spends the most money on education, disbursing $980 billion annually, or twice as much as China and five times as much as India. It is also the most engineer-intensive country, with 981 engineering degrees per million citizens, compared with 553 for China and 197 for India.
American universities currently do a better job overall at preparing students for the workforce. The World Economic Forum estimates that 81% of U.S. engineering graduates are immediately "employable," while only 25% of Indian graduates and 10% of Chinese graduates are equally well prepared. "Chinese students can swarm a problem," a dean at a major Chinese university told us. "But when it comes to original thought and invention, we stumble. We are trying hard to make that up. We are trying to make technical education the grounding from which we solve problems." One of the reasons for the underfunding is the relative weakness of India's central government, which accounts for only 15% of total expenditure on education. The 28 states that account for the balance vary greatly by wealth and infrastructure. But unlike China, India has significant private education, with nearly 200,000 private schools and 17,000 private colleges. The World Bank and private investors are pouring billions of dollars into education there, and the government plans to expand its best-known universities, as well as community colleges. The current five-year plan proposes higher-education investments of more than $18 billion.