Acharya wrote:Please read all the archives of Kissinger/Nixon visit to China and their conversation on India. You will get the clarity.V_Raman wrote: Uncle can take care of China and pakistan since they dont have legitimacy
But Uncle has a deeper problem with India and that is the problem
can you please explain more Acharyaji. i want to understand more. Are there any threads i can read to understand this better?
...It is not my contention that November 24, 2009 will be a repeat of July 18, 2005. The world has, of course, changed. At that time the US was unquestionably the sole super power. China was a rising power whom the US wanted to be “tethered in Asia”, in the words of the then Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. The US of George Bush promised to help India in its efforts to become a world-class power, presumably in an attempt to create a balance of power in Asia....
...Today, the US is perceived as a declining power in the wake of the financial crisis and China is seen as the second-ranking power striving hard to narrow the gap between itself and the US. Many Chinese and some Americans talk of a G-2 system of the US and China managing the international monetary system. China holds more than 800 billions of US dollar assets. The US expects China to continue to buy its treasury bonds. Predictions are that at current rates of growth, China will overtake the US as the world’s number one economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) in the next two-three decades. This situation is different from the one in July 2005, and the Indo-US summit has to address this reality...
Obviously, Obama would like the US to continue to be a pre-eminent economic, technological and military power even if it has to lose its place as the number one economy in terms of GDP.
Both Manmohan Singh and Obama believe that in the 21st century, knowledge will be the currency of power. China has four times the population of the US and is investing heavily in higher education and upgrading the skills of its population. Obama has warned fellow Americans that if they do not upgrade their education, they will have to face competition from Beijing and Bangalore.
If the US is to sustain its pre-eminence, it needs partners. This is highlighted by the fact that in this year’s Nobel prize list, a majority are Americans, and a majority among them are immigrant Americans! President Obama has already recognised the value of this aspect of Indo-US partnership.
Looks like carrying knife to a gun fight. When the issues is challenging PRC hegemony, KS wants to submit Indian intellectual capital to the US for their recovery under rubric of partnership. The US can get that with PRC money anyway.What is in India’s national interest? Surely an international system in which the pre-eminent power is a pluralist democracy and not a totalitarian one-party state. India too needs a partnership for its accelerated economic growth. China was able to grow at such a rapid pace after 1980 because Chinese “princelings” (sons of top military officers and apparatchiks) linked up with US multinationals and exploited the US as a market, using the ties with those multinationals.
For the US, India is an English-speaking, pluralistic and democratic country, home of immigrants who have already made a notable contribution to US scientific and organisational innovativeness in a short period of three decades. US companies have developed a significant number of R&D centres in India and their experience of offsourcing has been positive with reciprocal Indian job creation in the US.
While China is likely to face the problem of an ageing population, India will have a youth bulge in the next two-three decades with a potential to convert it into a very productive workforce.
The US is about to embark upon a major healthcare reform which, it is feared, will increase its budgetary deficit and public debt. A major tie-up between US drug firms and the Indian pharma industry can result in significant cost reductions. It is expected that environment industries dealing in clean energy generation and energy efficient products will come up in coming years. The two countries can work together in this field.
Economic recovery after the financial crisis will be marked by the emergence of new, innovative technologies. Indo-US collaboration and cooperation in these areas may lead to cost reductions and creation of new markets. In other words, India is in a position to help sustain US pre-eminence in technological and economic spheres.
Unlike in 2005, this time India is in a position to offer the US a partnership of mutual benefit, which will serve both Indian and US national interests and also serve the cause of democracy. Just as the Sino-US economic partnership of the past three decades benefited both countries, till the recent economic crisis set in, and aided China’s growth, an Indo-US economic and social partnership can also be of mutual benefit to both democracies. {This ignores the fundamentals of why the US and PRC collaborated-It was the fear of SU which isnt there and the PRC can never be the existential threat the SU was. And was the US-PRC collaboration based on democracy or shared values? NO- it was based on real politick of common threat from SU.}
How about reading the first page of this thread?csharma wrote:ramana, can ypu point to Shyam Saran's thinking on Indo US relations. Thanks.
Acharyaji...thank you for the link and your statement on US policy in Asia since Nixsinger times. Please correct me if I've said anything wrong here, during Nixsinger to BakerBush Sr. India was close to Soviets which resulted in US policy get drafted like that for that millennium. But, things have changed now, I fail to understand why US policy wasn't changed after so many developments between US and India post 2000 and 9/11. What Mr. Obama did and said on his so called Asia tour was a gross negligence of Indo-US relations from his end. Well, I leave their policy to them. What bothers me is how India as a nation should take this US-China fake affair at the cost of India's image? How will our leadership and their team of diplomats and secretaries will/should take this? I wonder how Indian diplomats posted in China are digesting those cunning, wicked grin faces after Obama okayed China overlooking Indo-Pak ties.Acharya wrote:Are you in India. One needs to understand that US policy in Asia was set in 1972 by the Kissinger/Nixon group and has never changed since then.Venkarl wrote: Considering the current scenario, it gives me sleepless nights as a normal citizen of India. I personally take this act of US President as a humiliation on my face.
I am not able to digest this kind of insult. While I see India rising, I do not wish to face another insult like this....call me egoist..emotional or whatever...but I do not want another one of this type..no not any more...please accept my apologies if my post violated any forum rules and ethics...
view this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwVQphTDCeU
Itna emotion kyonPeople I talk to in India about this subject do not show the seriousness of the situation. Sleepless nights in India worrying about this is good since it shows the gravity of the situation.Venkarl wrote:
Regarding my location...most of my times on BR are in lurk mode...It slipped off my mind to update my profile location when I've returned to India for greater good few months ago. I am sorry about that while I want to understand how important is my location with few highlighted quotes. No hard feelings Sir, just wanted to know as I am poor with understanding subtle messages.
Anything other than part III? Planning to save it all so wanted to know where the juice was.
After a gap of nearly a decade, a joint statement issued by the US and China has named India and Pakistan.
US President Barack Obama repeated this during a press briefing later, saying the two countries had agreed to work together to bring about “peaceful relations in all of South Asia.”
This will go down poorly in India. Not only has it long argued its relations with Pakistan are a bilateral issue, the joint statement has given the impression the US sees China as the dominant power broker in Asia.On Tuesday, Obama and Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao announced plans to work together on a range of international issues. But the statement had an unexpected line: that the two sides “support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan.”
...
...
This will go down poorly in India. Not only has it long argued its relations with Pakistan are a bilateral issue, the joint statement has given the impression the US sees China as the dominant power broker in Asia. The most favourable interpretation is that Washington’s real interest is to persuade Beijing to exert its considerable influence with Pakistan.
...
I for one am glad it happened before the Ombaba-MMS meeting next week, as it brings them back to reality. I don't know how obama's or MMS' apologists will try to spin this, but this is as bad as it gets between India and US. This officially acknowledges China's role in South Asia. If India cannot play a dominant role in its own region, we will have no control over how event unfolds over the next few years! A rude wake up call if ever there was one.A week before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected as state guest in Washington, US president Barack Obama has given a monitoring role to China in South Asia, particularly between India and Pakistan, a fact that has stuck in New Delhi's throat.
The US and China have agreed to work together to bring about stable and peaceful relations in all of South Asia, Obama said during his joint briefing with Chinese president Hu Jintao in Beijing. Hu, who spoke first in the briefing, did not mention Pakistan or South Asia.
They (US and China) "support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan," the joint statement said.
This is a rare occasion when a US president has acknowledged that Beijing has a role to play in the India-Pakistan relationship. The move, if serious, runs counter to predictions of US foreign policy experts that the US would not acquiesce in a future Chinese hegemony in the region.
While New Delhi maintained a studied silence on the joint statement, it has infuriated officials in the foreign office because it brings back nasty memories of another US-China joint statement by Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin on June 29, 1998. Then too, it was Clinton and Jiang, in what India considered "offensive" language, scolding India and Pakistan for their nuclear tests. India had reacted sharply then, buffetted by general international condemnation after the tests.
But Tuesday's statement cuts at the heart of an Indian effort to build a relationship with the US without China complicating the issue. Former diplomat KC Singh said, "The statement was uncalled for and gratuitous, and serves to poison the chalice before the PM goes to Washington."
The reality is perhaps that the joint statement was drafted by Obama's China officials who don't carry sensitivities of India with them. But that it was allowed to go through signals to many Indian strategists that Obama may be more than pliant to China, giving it a role in a region where it's bound to come into conflict with a country Obama says is a US strategic partner, India.
The question is whether the US was pressured into giving China a bigger role in the region in return for other favours in areas like the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues. The Indian government, which has always opposed third party intervention in the India-Pakistan dialogue, is likely to be worried about the new development.
The joint statement also shows that Washington is agreeable to the idea of China playing a bigger role in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is another issue that can rattle New Delhi.
"The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region," the joint statement further said explaining the parameters of US-China cooperation in the region.
A Chinese foreign ministry official later said the two leaders did not discuss specifics of the situation in South Asia because there was not much time available for that. There were a lot of other issues for them to discuss, he said.
But the joint statement is the product of weeks of discussions between two sides and the US administration officials did approve the phrases concerning China's role in South Asia.
ramana wrote:Lets see if PRC gets over confident and tries to settle the disputes in its own manner.
The two sides welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan. The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.
i am not expert in the Chinese Geography, on the other big brother might help you.Jarita wrote:Thanks Krishnamu. Can you tell us a little bit about Guilin? Thanks again
BTW good morning
did anybody notice how HK was bending over backwards for the chinese ambassador, who was mainly uttering inanities bordering non sequiturs. i dont understand what the chinese had done that deserved so much bucket holding. honestly, it was like school boy talk, i will only tell this to you, but i will not tell arun type of dialogues.ramana wrote:Acharya wrote: Uncle can take care of China and pakistan since they dont have legitimacy
But Uncle has a deeper problem with India and that is the problem
can you please explain more Acharyaji. i want to understand more. Are there any threads i can read to understand this better?
Please read all the archives of Kissinger/Nixon visit to China and their conversation on India. You will get the clarity.
Archives:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB70/
Read part III for start.
Acharya, I think a common Indian is not aware of GoI's view of resolving Indo-Pak border dispute(bilateral,no third party), leave alone their opinion on world leader removing India like kadi patta from his Asian meal(no, I am not in a mood for pun).Acharya wrote:People I talk to in India about this subject do not show the seriousness of the situation. Sleepless nights in India worrying about this is good since it shows the gravity of the situation.Venkarl wrote:
Regarding my location....... with understanding subtle messages.
For at least two reasons, vera_k. One is that nothing should go unchallenged because it would then become a fait accompli. Secondly, war is not the only way to assert one's position. It is the last option and India may never resort to that option to establish its sphere of influence while a China may also decide not to start a war. In that case, the impression that is created by repeated assertions like the this reference to the situation in the Indian subcontinent will become the accepted norm.vera_k wrote:Why do people think something has changed with this statement? It seems the status quo put in place in 1962 is intact. Won't that be broken only by besting China in a war?
This is leaving a bad taste ahead of the summit. Let's see what happens during the summit. Only KS seems to be sanguine about the outcome.Sources in New Delhi say Obama’s statement has not gone down too well with the Indian government, which has always opposed third party intervention in the India-Pakistan dialogue.
Government sources have told TIMES NOW that this could be a move by Obama to gain leverage ahead of his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
In part, this statement works as a psychological leverage over India. Consider the mentality of the ruling class which is basically morally hollow but status-obsessed--they desperately want to be accepted as a junior partner of America, albeit with some level of respect & status--this is the meaning of the constant hankering after the "superpower" label, begging for Security Council seat, etc. Essentially it boils down to aspiring to become a vassal, but primus inter pares among vassals. The current statement only creates stress and angst at seeing this dream recede and replaced by a humiliating low status, forced to "drink the elbow water" of china while Pakistan looks on in glee and attacks at will. The feeling is like torture.SSridhar wrote:For at least two reasons, vera_k. One is that nothing should go unchallenged because it would then become a fait accompli. Secondly, war is not the only way to assert one's position. It is the last option and India may never resort to that option to establish its sphere of influence while a China may also decide not to start a war. In that case, the impression that is created by repeated assertions like the this reference to the situation in the Indian subcontinent will become the accepted norm.vera_k wrote:Why do people think something has changed with this statement? It seems the status quo put in place in 1962 is intact. Won't that be broken only by besting China in a war?
While the problem solely lies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Obama administration has never been able to disassociate India from the "Af-Pak" situation. This statement shows Obama trying to get Chinese blessing on his "Af-Pak + India" thinking and Chinese using their leverage on US to score geo-political points over India. At the same time both US and China, while seeing themselves as part of the solution, are discounting their own decades long role in propping up Pakistani economy, military, and nuclear programs which created the Af-Pak problem in the first place and Pakistani animosity towards India ensured that "Af-Pak + India" factor whether we like it or not. Had it not been for US/China propping up TSP, the problem would have been solved a long time back. So if there is one thing that MMS should impress Obama with during their meeting it is that the problem is "Af-Pak + US + China", but not "Af-Pak + India". Fix the first problem and the second will automatically go away. Or at the very least it will keep India out of their geo-political games.SSridhar wrote:For at least two reasons, vera_k. One is that nothing should go unchallenged because it would then become a fait accompli. Secondly, war is not the only way to assert one's position. It is the last option and India may never resort to that option to establish its sphere of influence while a China may also decide not to start a war. In that case, the impression that is created by repeated assertions like the this reference to the situation in the Indian subcontinent will become the accepted norm.vera_k wrote:Why do people think something has changed with this statement? It seems the status quo put in place in 1962 is intact. Won't that be broken only by besting China in a war?
KVRaojeeIn part, this statement works as a psychological leverage over India. Consider the mentality of the ruling class which is basically morally hollow but status-obsessed--they desperately want to be accepted as a junior partner of America, albeit with some level of respect & status--this is the meaning of the constant hankering after the "superpower" label, begging for Security Council seat, etc.
Meaning - the Fed is not going to raise interest rates anytime soon. Period. And no one, not even the superpower-in-waiting, can make them. Period again.Dear Wen Jaibao:
We in America have noted with concern your nations' expression of alarm at our Federal Reserve's blatant money-printing, debt monetization, and interference in the free markets, in particular the recent commentary of China's bank regulator.
However, yesterday afternoon Ben Bernanke gave you the finger, Donald Kohn, another Fed Governor, erected his middle finger in your direction as well with his comments last night and Yellen added her view this morning in which they also both said "we see no bubble." That's three.
How many more times do you need to be flipped off before you get it: The Fed isn't going to do what you want, and neither is Obama. Get over yourself.
On the objective measures the price/earnings multiple of the S&P 500 currently stands at over 130, more than double its previous record and vastly beyond anything achieved even in China's manipulated and overheated markets. In short, they're lying and they don't care.
Welcome to American Politics Mr. Wen.
Uh-oh. Is he verbalizing what is already on many minds? That the US might wilfully have to default on its debts? Nothing new, has happened before with many many countries only.Now that I have your attention by making sure you that you realize that our Central Bank has flipped you off, let me point out something you should be aware of:
The so-called "paper" you hold denominated in our dollars will not be paid in full.
Let me put forward a few realities you may not be aware of, since you are the Premier of a Communist Nation where there is no freedom of the press nor, for that matter, any of the other freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. That is, you head a nation where you believe the government has rights and the serfs, er, population has privileges you grant, where our founding documents express the precise opposite view - we believe that all people have rights that are endowed by our creator, that government can secure and protect rights but is incapable of bestowing them (since it didn't have them in the first place), and that government has mere privileges granted by the people - and that the people have the right to revoke those privileges.
Here's the problem you face, in a nutshell, just to make sure you read it correctly the first time:
We're not going to pay.
Wow. so the pitch begins or what? Is that the line the yanks will ultimately pull?First, we (the citizens) didn't enter into these obligations. You pursued a mercantilist strategy that involved, among other things, near-literal enslavement of your citizens under working conditions equal to or worse than those we imposed on the Africans we forcibly imported into this nation (that is, kidnapped) in the 1600s and 1700s. ...
As a consequence we the people don't like you very much. In fact, some of us would be quite content to invite you to dinner - as the main course.
Hmmm. I see.Next, it is clear that you have strong-armed our government into exchanging toxic securities you bought from private actors for "good credit" US Treasuries. You are among those who have played the "Financial Armageddon" card with a fair measure of success. Precisely what you said and to whom you said it has not been publicly disclosed, but that threats were part of the negotiation is essentially assured, since nobody in their right mind would exchange used toilet paper for good Treasury Debt otherwise. Yet our government wasn't the agent of the original fraud - those were private corporations and actors. Instead of doing what reasonable people do - that is, sue in a US Court and hold the guilty to account - you decided to play geopolitics. You have that right, but we have the right to tell you to stuff it - today or tomorrow. That day will come I can assure you.
Third, there is the matter of our citizens waking up to the scams - including your scams....
Trust me when I tell you we're just as pissed off about the frauds and scams as you are, but that doesn't give you the right to obligate we the people who were not the architects of these scams and frauds to pay for them, and we will not accept any such putative "obligation." Go take your gripe up with Mr. Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, Obama, Bush and those who peddled all this crap worldwide. Your beef is with them, not us, and we hold that those who commit bad acts are where the liability for same begins and ends.
...
Finally, we have the matter of our children and those yet unborn. They did not consent to any of this - not even the rampant consumerism you fueled in this nation with your slave labor and pegged currency. They have no obligation whatsoever to you or to any debt contracted by anyone prior to their coming of age, and it is highly unlikely they will consent to be bound to it.
There you have it. The bare naked iron claw. No more velvet gloves now. No?You proceed from the unfounded belief that our government will be able to extract this effort from us via either voluntary compliance with ever-rising taxation or the employment of naked force at arms. This is not a sound assumption.
...
Sooner or later, whether by peaceful election or less-than-peaceful means, a leader will arise in America who will contemplate erecting the middle finger back in your direction, just as many Americans have flipped off Washington DC. Ben Bernanke, Mr. Kohn and Ms. Yellen are just the first three you've seen in our officials who are willing to tell you where to stick your expectations - the day will come, I assure you, where a decision is made to simply tell you to stuff it at the highest levels of our government. Yes, such a declaration - that your alleged and dear "Treasuries" are in fact nothing more than toilet paper - would have severe geopolitical consequences. So what? By then our nation will be incapable of paying anyway - a default by any other name is still default. But our citizens, unlike yours, are and will be armed - go ask Admiral Yamamoto about the wisdom of considering an attempt to enforce your alleged debt by force. While you're at it count the blades of grass in our nation. I think you can figure the rest out for yourself.
Worse for you, while we would suffer were America to turn isolationist, we would survive. Your nation and its people would not.
GoI also should have also said something like this "India has been the worst sufferer of cross border terrorism for which support extended by other countries to states that are unwilling to take action to rein in sponsors of such acts, is significantly responsible. We hope such support will cease so that meaningful dialogue can take place."."The government of India is committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue in accordance with the Simla Agreement. A third country role cannot be envisaged nor is it necessary. We also believe that a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan can take place only in an environment free from terror or the threat of terror."
US ambassador to India Timothy J Roemer, meanwhile, described as a 'positive statement' the mention of Indo-Pakistan relations in the US-China joint statement.
"I have not really taken a close look at the joint statement at this point. The two countries (US and China) have said they would work for a more stable and peaceful relationship between the countries in South Asia. I think that is a very positive statement to make," he said.
Roemer said this at a press conference here when his attention was drawn to the discomfort in India over the mention of its relationship with Pakistan in the US-China joint statement. The envoy went on to add that the US is 'trying to make sure there is a prosperous and peaceful rise of China' and 'at the same time have historic close relations between the United States and India.' {What 'historic close relationship' is he talking about ? The close relationship is very recent and is still fraught with suspicion from the Indian masses}