Managing Chinese Threat

[SSridhar]

Strategic Embrace - Vladimir Radyuhin, FrontLine

RUSSIA’S new push for closer strategic ties with China is gaining momentum. Major deals in two critical areas, energy and defence, are already in the pipeline.

When China’s new leader Xi Jinping visits Moscow this month, the two sides are expected to sign an agreement to increase Russian oil deliveries to China by more than 60 per cent from the current level of 15 million tonnes. Russian officials said crude shipments to China could eventually grow to 50 million tonnes.

Going by official statements in Moscow and Beijing, the two countries are close to breaking the deadlock over price in the long-winding talks on the supply of Russian natural gas to China. The two sides hope to sign a contract by the end of the year for the transport of 38 billion cubic metres of gas through a pipeline along the Pacific coast. Russian supplies will account for 30 per cent of China’s gas needs.

In another major development, Russia is resuming the supply of advanced weapons platforms to China. In December 2012, Russia concluded a framework agreement with China for the sale of four Amur-1650 diesel submarines. Earlier this year, the two countries signed an intergovernmental agreement for the supply of Russia’s latest Sukhoi Su-35 long-range fighter planes. If the deals go through, for the first time in a decade Russia will deliver offensive weapons to China.

Relations between Russia and China have followed an upward trajectory ever since they were normalised in the late 1980s under Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev after a long period of hostility triggered by an ideological split in the mid-1950s. In 2008, Russia and China removed the last major irritant in their relations, settling the long-running territorial dispute along their 4,300-kilometre-long border.

A new stage in strategic ties between the two countries began with Vladimir Putin’s return to the Kremlin for a third presidential term almost a year ago. Beijing was the first capital outside the former Soviet Union that Putin visited soon after assuming office. The choice of China was loaded with symbolism since it came shortly after Putin skipped a G8 summit in the United States, demonstrating his reluctance to make the U.S. his first overseas destination. For Xi, Moscow will be the first foreign capital he visits as President.

Russia and China are driven closer by economic and geopolitical compulsions. Russia hopes to benefit from China’s insatiable thirst for energy and other resources and diversify its oil and gas export routes away from stagnating Europe. China considers Russia to be part of “strategic rear” along with Central Asia, and its value for Beijing is especially high today when the U.S. is mounting its “pivot” towards Asia.

Russia and China are drawing closer at a time when their relations with the U.S. have run into rough waters. Moscow is deeply disappointed with U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy of “reset”, seeing it as an instrument for winning unilateral concessions from Russia on Iran, Afghanistan and Libya, while refusing to heed Russia’s concerns over the U.S. global missile defence, tone down criticism of Russia’s human rights record, and ease access to high technologies of the U.S.

Beijing sees Obama’s strategic redeployment in the Asia-Pacific region as aimed at containing China. The U.S. support for Japan in its territorial dispute with China has only strengthened Chinese suspicions. Moscow and Beijing have achieved unprecedented coordination on all major issues of global politics, including Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea. It is in the sphere of defence that strong Russian-Chinese relations come out most graphically.

ARMS EXPORT

In the 1990s and early 2000s, cash-strapped Russia sold aircraft, ships and other weapons worth $26 billion to China. The sales were dictated by economic necessity rather than strategic considerations. Without the Chinese and Indian contracts, the Russian defence industry would have died as the Russian army had no money to buy weapons. In later years, Russian arms sales to China declined because the Chinese industry mastered the production of clones and the modification of Russian systems. For its part, Moscow became far more cautious about supplying cutting-edge defence technologies to China and turned down Beijing’s requests for more advanced weapons.

However, today Russian experts tend to think that China’s ability to copy critical technologies, such as aircraft engines, has been overrated in Moscow. “Chinese aircraft engines, which are essentially modified versions of Russian engines, are way too inferior to the originals, and China continues to depend on the supply of Russian engines,” Vasily Kashin, an expert on China, said.

he sale of Amur-1650 and Su-35 marks a turnaround in Russia’s China arms export policy.

“When and if China succeeds in copying Russia’s new weapons platforms, the Russian industry will hopefully move ahead with new technologies,” Kashin said.

Resumption of large-scale weapons sales to China is essentially a political decision, as the Russian defence industry today has its books full with orders from the Russian armed forces under a $700-billion rearmament programme launched two years ago. It is part of a foreign policy strategy Putin formulated for his new six-year term in the Kremlin in an election campaign manifesto a year ago, about which he said:

“I am convinced that China’s economic growth is by no means a threat, but a challenge that carries colossal potential for business cooperation—a chance to catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy.” The Russian leader explained why Russia stood to gain from deeper ties with China. First, China’s potential would help Russia “develop the economy of Siberia and the Russian far east”. Second, China “shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order”, and the two countries “work together to solve acute regional and global problems”. Lastly, Russia and China had resolved “all the major political issues” between them, including the border disputes.

China has already overtaken Germany as Russia’s top commercial partner, with bilateral trade expected to touch $90 billion this year and soar to $200 billion by 2020. There is a geopolitical aspect to the Russia-China axis, which Putin chose to omit. “The balance of power between America and China will to a large extent depend on whether and on which side Russia will play,” the foreign policy analyst Fyodor Lukyanov said.

The renewal of Russian sales of advanced weapons to China may be an indication on whose side Moscow has decided to stay. American analysts are already ringing the alarm bells. “The sales of advanced new equipment, otherwise unavailable from local Chinese industry, could have serious implications for U.S. security commitments in the region,” Wendell Minnick, Asia Bureau Chief of Defence News, wrote in the Washington-based defence weekly newspaper. Quoting Dean Cheng, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, Minnick warns of an “enormous and fundamental strategic shift” the Russian arms sales could trigger in the region. “…The introduction of new, quieter subs and the more advanced fighter aircraft calls into question the ability for the U.S. to control the ‘commons’ —that is, airspace and sea space. Future conflicts may not see American dominance of air and sea, and certainly should not be assumed as a given,” Minnick quoted Dean Cheng.

Ironically, the new Russian arms sales to China could ricochet against India, Russia’s most trusted defence partner. For the first time, Russia is going to sell China more powerful weapons platforms than those it has supplied to India. The Amur submarine is far more silent and powerful than the Kilo-class submarines the Indian Navy has in its inventory. India’s Su-30MKI will be no match for China’s Su-35, which is powered by a higher thrust engine and possesses more sophisticated radar, avionics and weapons, according to Konstantin Makienko, a leading Russian military expert with the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

For the same reason, China’s acquisition of Su-35s will knock down the value of India’s planned purchase of the French Rafale, Makienko said. At the same time, he believes that India is in a position to retain its edge in military aviation vis-a-vis China if it speeds up the development of a fifth-generation fighter plane with Russia and goes for in-depth upgrade of its fleet of Su-30MKI fighters.

Some analysts think that the Russia-China camaraderie poses far greater risks for Russia itself. They argue that demographic pressures and the growing need for resources may push China to turn the Russian-built weapons against Russia. “We should stop selling them the rope to hang us with,” said Alexander Khramchikhin of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis.

Other experts believe that China will not need to resort to arms to conquer Russia through demographic and economic expansion. The Russian far east, which constitutes 40 per cent of the country’s territory, has a shrinking population of 6.5 million, whereas three contiguous regions of China have more than 100 million people.

DEMOGRAPHIC THREATS

In a rare recognition of demographic threats, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned in August 2012 that the sparsely populated far-eastern region should be protected “from the excessive expansion of people from neighbouring countries”.

The structure of trade between Russia and China prompts fears of Chinese colonisation. Russia ships oil, timber, metals and other commodities to China, and imports machinery and consumer goods.

“If the current economic trends persist, it is very likely that Russia east of the Urals and later the whole country will turn into an appendage of China—first as a warehouse of resources and then economically and politically. This will happen without any ‘aggressive’ or hostile efforts by China, it will happen by default,” wrote the respected political scientist Sergey Karaganov.

There has been little evidence so far of any serious effort to change the prevailing pattern of economic ties. In 2009, Russia and China signed a nine-year economic cooperation agreement, which provides for stepped-up supplies of Russian raw materials to China, where they would be processed into manufactured goods for export back to Russia.

Alexei Yablokov, a prominent Russian environmentalist, denounced the pact as “humiliating” for Russia and said it would reduce eastern Siberia and the far east, which constitute roughly half of Russia’s territory, to a “raw material appendage of China”.

Russian strategists have criticised the Kremlin for pursuing a China-centrist policy after the break-up of the Soviet Union and urged Moscow to balance its tight embrace of China with active engagement of other Asia-Pacific nations.

Last September, Russia announced its own pivot to Asia by hosting a summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Vladivostok. Moscow is trying to reach out to Japan, strengthen relations with South Korea and revamp strategic bonds with Vietnam. In early March, Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu visited Myanmar and Vietnam, vowing to boost defence ties with both countries.

Russia must rediscover itself “as a Euro-Pacific nation and look not only across the river to China, but also across the sea to Japan and Korea as well as across the ocean to North America and Australia,” Dmitry Trenin of the Moscow Carnegie Centre said.

[SSridhar]

Rising Nationalism Casts Shadow on China's Border Disputes - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

On Monday, China’s new President Xi Jinping acknowledged that solving the border dispute with India “will not be easy.” Mr. Xi’s comment was hardly surprising: 15 rounds of talks have made little headway in moving the long-running and complex boundary question towards resolution. As Mr. Xi takes over, however, an already difficult dispute is facing further complications: recent months have seen an increasing number of comments from China’s increasingly influential — and nationalistic — online community, calling for China to take a harder position with India and to “take back” its territory.

The comments have coincided with renewed attention in China over a territorial spat with Japan and Mr. Xi’s increasingly frequent invocations of “a Chinese dream” centred around the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

In a microblog post written to coincide with the Chinese Parliament session that concluded on Sunday, Du Dacai, a scholar at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, wrote that “solving the problem of our territory of South Tibet [as China refers to Arunachal Pradesh]” should be China’s fourth pressing priority “to realise the Chinese dream and China’s unification.” {So, apart from Taiwan, South China Sea and Tibet, now Arunachal Pradesh is also included in the 'core issue' list}

Top three priorities

The first three priorities, according to him, were: restoring Taiwan to China, regaining the Diaoyu or Senkaku islands from Japan; and “taking back sovereignty of the South China Sea,” which is disputed by more than 10 countries.

China claims around 90,000 sq km of land in Arunachal Pradesh – referred to by Chinese State media and bloggers as “south Tibet” – and a further 38,000 sq km in the western sector in Aksai Chin, which is currently under Chinese control and disputed by India.

Another article written this week by a graduate of Nanchang University said the people “living in South Tibet belong to China’s 56 ethnic groups.” “My motherland,” he wrote, “your wandering son wants to go home after 50 years of separation.”

The sentiments underscore the rising tide of nationalism among younger Chinese, which was recently on display in mass anti-Japanese protests that broke out in several cities last year over the disputed Diaoyu or Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. Tens of thousands gathered chanting anti-Japanese slogans. Many protesters were also seen carrying portraits of Mao Zedong – seen as an indirect rebuke to the current leadership, which has been criticised as being too “weak” in enforcing China’s territorial claims.

Mr. Xi begins his first overseas visit as President to Moscow on Friday, the Chinese government is also facing surprising criticism for what is being perceived as a weak stance on territorial disputes with Russia.

Only on Monday, Mr. Xi described Russia as China’s “major and most important” strategic partner. He pointed out that both countries had “solid” political ties, citing the fact that they had achieved the difficult feat of “completely settling the boundary issue.” Yet in the past couple of days leading up to Mr. Xi’s departure to Russia, hundreds of comments online “demanding the return of territories” inundated the Russian Embassy in Beijing’s official microblog on Sina Weibo, a Twitter equivalent used by 500 million Chinese.

“We want our land back, take away your Marxism-Leninism ideology!,” said one comment among more than 1,300 posted to the Russian Embassy, reported the South China Morning Post. China’s settlement of its boundary with Russia is seen by many in China as a deal that favoured Russian claims.

One Chinese scholar at the University of Agriculture wrote in a post last week to his 85,000 followers on Weibo that Russia was “the country that occupies the largest territory of China.” “The second is India,” he said, “and then it is Kazakhstan. We only give attention to Japan because of political factors, and that is the easiest way to annoy the angry youth. But when we speak of Russia, all the patriots suddenly go silent.”

So, China has border disputes with Kazakhastan, Russia, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Bruenei, and India.

[abhishek_sharma]

China’s Military Modernization: Responses from India

[SSridhar]

China-Sri Lanka Space Cooperation Worries India - Sandeep Joshi, The Hindu

The Indian authorities have been looking into possible options to counter any security threat. In its suggestions, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) had said India should offer to build and launch satellites for Colombo.

“A mutually beneficial cooperation arrangement for building satellites and operating them with increased coverage areas over India can be worked out so that capabilities on satellites can be used by both the countries,” it had said.

Now, the inter-ministerial meeting under the leadership of Deputy NSA on March 25 would discuss the issue threadbare. Government sources said India was likely to initiate discussions with Sri Lankan authorities on bilateral cooperation in space-related activities, including building, launching and operating satellites. And if Sri Lanka refused to budge, India would request its neighbour to regulate footprints of satellite coverage within its land and maritime boundary to minimise Chinese interference, if any.

It is also learnt that India was likely to raise objections at an international level when the issues of orbital slot, frequency coordination and downlinking of foreign channels would come up to safeguard its national security and commercial interests, they noted.

[RajeshA]

Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan should have been integrated into India a long time back! This Nehruvian-Idiocy is something we have suffered long enough.

[JE Menon]

So, from our point of view, Tibet would be Northern Arunachal?

[RajeshA]

So, from our point of view, Tibet would be Northern Arunachal?

I don't think we need to try to explain it that way!

Tibet is 100% Indian cultural expanse! Tibetans would themselves want to be part of India. Tawang can be South Tibet. Tibet Autonomous Region is North Tibet. What we should press on is the right of Tibetans and Tibet to be part of India.

If we call Tibet as "North Arunachal", we would be confessing that "Tibet", as an identity, is something India cannot claim for herself.

[svinayak]

So, from our point of view, Tibet would be Northern Arunachal?

I don't think we need to try to explain it that way!

Tibet is 100% Indian cultural expanse! Tibetans would themselves want to be part of India. Tawang can be South Tibet. Tibet Autonomous Region is North Tibet. What we should press on is the right of Tibetans and Tibet to be part of India.

If we call Tibet as "North Arunachal", we would be confessing that "Tibet", as an identity, is something India cannot claim for herself.

Chinese dont know Tibet culture and it is alien to them now. Tibetans are outside people for China and PRC. Only the PRC state takes care of that region and the chinese people have become culturally distant from all the far flung minority region and people. This is going on rapidly and the Tibet people will go back to their original roots and cultural memory before the Tibet was taken over.


The Chinese revolutionary juggernaut and cultural leap is withering away and the native culture is rapidly taking over. I meet several Chinese yoga and meditation teachers who are following Chinese 'masters' and Chinese 'teachers'. These Chinese masters visit India and learn and go back to teach in China and Chinese diaspora in the west. One of the master has given a jade pendent to a disciple and it was exactly the murthy of Saraswathi.

[Prem]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... njaya-baru
India’s Five Thoughts on China

NEW DELHI – There is something about the number five in Sino-Indian relations. Asia’s two giants have long defined their relationship in terms of the famous Pancha Sheela: mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence.
Now China’s new leaders have enunciated a new Pancha Sheela, with President Xi Jinping offering a “five-point proposal” for Sino-Indian relations. The updated principles would maintain strategic communication and healthy bilateral relations; harness each other’s strengths and expand cooperation in infrastructure, investment, and other areas; deepen cultural ties and increase mutual understanding and friendship; expand coordination and collaboration in multilateral affairs to safeguard developing countries’ legitimate interests and address global challenges; and accommodate each other’s core concerns and reconcile bilateral disagreements amicably.CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphIndia would be happy to embrace each of these principles. Only the fifth point is tricky, for it leaves China’s “core concerns” undefined. Traditionally, these were Tibet and Taiwan, but Chinese officials have recently referred to their claims on the South China Sea as a “core interest” as well.his has opened a Pandora’s box for China, and has facilitated America’s rediscovery of Asia. India, like many other countries with economic interests in the Pacific, wants freedom of maritime navigation to be assured, with no threat of a Chinese veto. Indeed, China must be mindful of India’s “core interests” as well, especially because it has grievously damaged at least one such interest by enabling Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons.
CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphChina’s investment in strategic assets like the Gwadar Port in Pakistan has reinforced India’s anxiety. While China cannot be blamed, perhaps not even implicated, in the growing tendency of India’s South Asian neighbors to play the “China card,” India cannot remain oblivious to this trend.Conflict in Asia, whether in the South China Sea or in western Asia, serves neither side’s interests. China and India cannot afford to remain reticent observers while Asia burns around them, mired in sectarianism, terrorism, violence, and instability.
CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphLikewise, it does not serve China’s interests to unnerve the countries of Southeast Asia, playing one against another. Nor is a Sino-Japanese conflict over the East China Sea in the interests of the rest of Asia. Rather, China and Japan should work together to build a new regional architecture for sustained economic growth and security.
CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphChina and India have a responsibility to work with other Asian powers, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Japan, Russia, and the US, to ensure peace, prosperity, and stability in the region. Many principles of cooperative engagement can – and should – be crafted from the difficult challenges that Asia’s two giants confront.

[Prem]

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/J ... 381045.php
Japan, EU agree to start free-trade negotiations

OKYO (AP) — Japan and the European Union agreed Monday to start negotiations for a free-trade pact encompassing nations that account for nearly a third of the world economy.Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso spoke by telephone for 30 minutes late Monday, a Japanese government spokesman said. A Japan-EU summit set to begin Monday in Tokyo was shelved because of the financial crisis in Cyprus.The leaders agreed to launch the negotiations toward a "deep and comprehensive" free-trade deal, with the first meeting set for next month, both sides said in a joint statement. The place for that meeting is not yet decided, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato told reporters.As global momentum builds for regional trade pacts, Japan has been eager to get started on talks with Europe. Earlier this month, Abe announced Tokyo will join talks on a Pacific trade pact, the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership. The U.S and EU announced free-trade talks earlier this year aimed at creating the world's largest free-trade zone.Among the likely beneficiaries of free trade are Japan's giant manufacturing exporters such as Toyota Motor Corp., the world's biggest automaker.
Japanese consumers may also have much to gain with access to cheaper imports, including new kinds of services. And boosts in spending may help breathe life into the Japanese economy, the world's third largest.
"It would be not only great for the manufacturers seeking exports. It should also lead to a more efficient domestic economy because of increased competition. And it's the Japanese consumer who will benefit," said Azusa Kato, economist at BNP Paribas.The push to start talks on joining free-trade deals is part of the Japanese prime minister's "Abenomics" strategy that includes super-easy money and generous public works spending.Abenomics has already driven up the Tokyo stock market and brought down the yen, a boon for Japan's exporters.Kato believes that industries that could change for the better include pharmaceuticals and medical services.The EU is Japan's third-largest destination for exports, and Japan's second-largest source of imports after China. EU exports to Japan reached 49 billion euros in 2011, while EU imports from Japan were 69 billion euros.

[SSridhar]

Chines Spoil Holi Broth of Local Manufacturers - The Hindu

The invasion of a vast range of coloured powder and squirt guns made in China has taken a toll on small and medium industries and rendered about 10 lakh people jobless over the past two years, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) has said.

More than 1,000 SMEs engaged in manufacturing colours and sprinklers have shut down due to the distress of those employed at these places, marring their festivities even as the country prepares to celebrate the onset of spring with colours.

Assocham secretary general D.S. Rawat said only 12 per cent of the sprinklers manufactured in the country could be sold so far, with producers rueing their inability to even recover the manufacturing cost.

Almost all the Chinese products were sold out, while the local stuff remained on the shelves. Mr. Rawat maintained that the Chinese dominated 80 per cent of the market a year ago, and this year it has shot up to 95 per cent.

The Holi accessories market grew from Rs.12,000 crore last year to about Rs.15,000 crore this year. The survey revealed that in comparison to the local products the Chinese artefacts were innovative. They have flooded the market with water guns, balloons, canons and toys of various sizes and shapes in replicas of animals, gadgets and characters, gripping the attention of children.{We lack widespread innovation. That shows up nakedly when we have competition. AT least, this should spur up the local manufacturers. I see the same issue in mosquito bats being sold in huge numbers especially in Chennai. The Indian bats are weak even in simple aspects of design and use and very costly too, almost thrice}

[rohitvats]

The low price of Chinese products notwithstanding, their biggest USP is the 'new' stuff being introduced into the system. Take for example the Holi products - the biggest craze are the water guns of the type one sees kids in US playing with. These are instant hit with the kids here. Carries more water, is relatively more reliable and doesn't cost a bomb. Though, the local dealers do put a huge premium on their cost.

Similarly, go to any electronic store in the city - from Croma to local retailers. There are many fancy and innovative electronic products which one can buy on impulse.

Unless Indian producers innovate, they will be fighting a loosing battle. The consumer will always prefer value for his money and go for what he considers best.

[member_20317]

VVV............. Aye Aye Sir.

[ramana]

Folks it about managing the Chinese threat. In most minds its from a military aspect and not from rhona/dhona hand wringing "we can't innovate" point of view.

Having said that, Nightwatch has the following comments on the recent PRC-Russia arms deal:

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00073.aspx

China-Russia: Chinese media reported today that last week China agreed to purchase 24 Su-35 and 4 modern diesel- electric submarines from Russia. Chinese official media claimed, "The Su-35 fighters can effectively reduce pressure on China's air defense before Chinese-made stealth fighters come online." Two of the submarines will be built in Russia and two in China, according to Chinese state TV. Most Chinese news outlets repeated the story.

"China and Russia are expected to cooperate further in developing military technology, including that for S-400 long-range anti-aircraft missiles, 117S large thrust engines and IL-476 large transport aircraft," according to the TV report.

Comment: The Su-35 is a fourth generation multi-role fighter. Discussions about a Chinese purchase of SU-35s have been intermittent for about 20 years. China originally tried to purchase 48 Su-35s, but Russia refused to make the sale because of China's record in not honoring Russian production rights.

Since then the Russians upgraded the Su-35 by 2005, but have sold none to foreign customers. Reportedly the Chinese are more interested in the 117S engines, but had to buy some Su-35s to get access to the engine. This is a significant breakthrough, if the agreement is as reported in the Chinese media.


China's Global Times 26 March edition reported the submarines are LADA-class submarines, which are follow-ons to the Russian KILO-class and can launch torpedoes and fire the SS-N-16 missile. The submarine reportedly can function in anti-surface ship or anti-submarine warfare roles and is useful for reconnaissance.


Special Update: Multiple Chinese media have been explicit that a new arms agreement has been signed. Russian media appear to be silent on this agreement, thus far.

One US press outlet reported that some Russian sources denied that a new arms agreement has been reached with China. Russian media have carried positive coverage of President Xi's comments about strengthening relations with Russia, including cooperation with the armed forces, without specifics. More later.

[Prem]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 10712.html
South Korea, Tokyo Seek Thaw, Nudged by U.S.

Japan and South Korea are haltingly moving to mend their bruised relationship, encouraged by U.S. offJcials eager to maintain a united front of allies as China's influence rises across the region and as North Korea has stepped up its bellicose rhetoric.Signs of a thaw have come as both countries have installed new leaders and as Washington has expressed growing impatience with repeated flare-ups over disagreements left unresolved since World War II.Efforts to rebuild trust between Seoul and Tokyo—which all but suspended top-level diplomatic dialogues last summer amid territorial tensions—have been under way since January, soon after both countries' elections.Eager not to let deep-seated bitterness over Japan's wartime record in Korea derail security strategies in Asia, U.S. officials have played a prominent role in encouraging better relations between the governments of South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.When Ms. Park was inaugurated in late February, Japan's deputy prime minister attended as well as 30 members of parliament and three former prime ministers. A week later, Ms. Park and Mr. Abe talked by phone, pledging to work together to implement new United Nations sanctions against North Korea in response to its Feb. 12 nuclear test.Momentum toward normalcy could build over the coming months. Senior officials from the two nations and China are set to kick off talks in Seoul on Tuesday for a trilateral free-trade agreement, an initiative that has endured tensions among all three nations. Leaders from the three are also expected to meet in South Korea in May for an annual confab, followed by other regional events over the summer.Japan and Korea are precious neighbors that share basic values and interests. We want to communicate frequently," Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told reporters after talking to Yun Byung-se, his counterpart, on the phone last week. Mr. Yun described Japan as "an important neighbor to work with for peace and cooperation in Northeast Asia." He said the two countries should take the opportunity of the launch of their new governments to enhance cooperation based on trust.

[Prem]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... ely-blown/
Japan's New Rare Earth Discovery: That's China's Monopoly Entirely Blown

Japan has just announced another vast discovery of rare earth bearing materials on the ocean floor. This does rather put an end to any possibility of China having a long term lock on the supply of these vital elements.Japan is celebrating the find of an “astronomically” high level of rare earth deposits at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, a discovery which will further undermine China’s failing attempts to control the global supply of the substances.This finding is a little different. Almost certainly from the same general source: but now the RE rich material is in nodules just under the silt of the ocean floor. This makes it all rather easier to raise from 5,000 metres down.There is another issue here. Rare earths are usually divided into two sets the lights and the heavies. The new land based mines (Molycorp, Lynas and so on) don’t have much of the heavies in them. So despite our having more REs to play with, ChiChina still pretty much has a lock on the heavy ones, the terbium, dysprosium and europium, that we would really like to have more of. This Japanese find is highly enriched in the heavies. Which rather neatly seems to solve that problem.This isn’t something that’s going to go into production this year of course. I’d be amazed if it does so this decade in fact. But it does lift the possibility of China retaining a production monopoly

[rajrang]

23 countries are conducting military exercises in Nepal including India and the US. Glaring omission is China and Pakistan! Seems like the US is bolstering India's relative influence in Nepal while countering growing Chinese's influence in Nepal. The US did the same in Myanmar in recent years. India should "outsource" countering China's influence in Sri Lanka, Banglades, Maldives, Bhutan, the Indian Ocean and even Pakistan to the US. The US influence in these countries is in my opinion relatively much, much more benign and India-friendly then the Chinese one. All India has to do is to sit on the US's side of the fence and keep shut, thus, providing diplomatic and immense moral support to the US. This in turn will help the US in influencing other 3rd world countries.

I am assuming the Indian leaders appreciate that the US (together with its vast number of alies and friends) are on the same "team" as India in the looming potential confrontation between China and the rest of the world.

http://article.wn.com/view/2013/03/17/N ... lated_news

Here is another link

http://zeenews.india.com/news/south-asi ... 36061.html

[SSridhar]

Rajrang, above, had asked the question whether India was aware that the US was on India's side on the evolving situation with China.

I quote from Teresita & Howard Schafer's article in The Hindu today.

When the U.S. and India started their East Asia dialogue in 2010, both sought peace and prosperity throughout South and East Asia. They saw China as the most rapidly changing regional power, with which engagement and cooperation are essential. Neither wanted China to become the sole East Asian power centre. While neither has explicitly articulated this as policy, both would like to foster a network of strong relations among the region’s major players as China’s economic and military power expands — including India, Japan, Korea, the United States and China itself. Both seek an open, inclusive institutional architecture, and are increasingly involved with East Asian organisations, including the security-oriented ASEAN Regional Forum. Both are comfortable having ASEAN continue as the heart of most of the region’s institutions. And for both, freedom of navigation throughout the Indo-Pacific area is absolutely critical.

Freedom of navigation

After almost three years of regular consultations, we have come to expect that India and the United States will respond to regional controversies touching their strategic interests independently, but will do so in ways that reinforce each other. The South China Sea is a good example. China’s claim to control virtually the entire sea has drawn the objections of its ASEAN littoral states. China insists on dealing with the ASEAN countries separately, brushing aside their preference to work together. Within ASEAN, there have been differences over how to manage their dealings with China on this issue. The organisation, unusually, was unable to reach a consensus on a statement on the South China Sea at its July 2012 summit.

Both India and the United States have given carefully crafted support to ASEAN on the South China Sea, calling for peaceful resolution of disputes and self-restraint without taking a position on the merits of the disputes. U.S. statements have mentioned the possibility of allowing ASEAN to work as a group. The United States has endorsed the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, calling it a good first step toward the code of conduct favoured by ASEAN members. India put the dispute in the context of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Both have stressed freedom of navigation; one Indian statement noted that half of India’s seaborne trade comes through the South China Sea.

India has had its own issues in the South China Sea. China has challenged India’s drilling on an oil concession bloc awarded to it by Vietnam, and the Chinese navy has confronted or escorted Indian naval vessels passing through these waters. India made its position publicly clear; the strong U.S. position on freedom of navigation was already on record in the background. These separate but parallel policies underline the similarities between Indian and U.S. interests on regional security.

[rajrang]

Thanks Sridharji for this article. By the way, I have also added another link to my previous post per your request.

A few months back US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited India and tried to woo India into a coalition of countries that would challenge Chinese arrogance in Asia a little more explicitly - starting with the S China Sea. Indian reaction ranged between extreme caution to outright disagreement with Panetta's views on China, as a result a rebuffed Mr. Panetta went back empty handed. In the subsequent months China has returned the favor to India - see Gwadar port and now a 1000 MW reactor in Pak.

There is zero need for China to give a nuclear reactor to Pak. (My opinion - the dramatic arrival and growth of wind power on the world power generation scene during the last 3 to 5 years is likely to significantly reduce the need for nuclear power very soon. However this is OT.) They could have given them a lot of windmills instead.

[SSridhar]

rajrang, I don't think India will ever join a coalition targetting a specific country including even Pakistan. It is India's policy to offer support for specific issues. Even if India is pushed to the point of joining a coalition, it may do so only covertly.

[pankajs]

Wasn't it the US which had in the recent past offered China the "G2" that in effect would have handed over the Indian ocean and India's security policy to the Chinese? Who has been the largest aid and arms provider to Pakistan? Who is behind this 'Aman ki Asha' tamasah and the 'piss on India' proposal to turn Siachen into a UN controlled 'Peace Park' and shred the Simla Accord of 1972 for ever? Who created and financed the terror network that has been a constant thorn for us? How easily we forget the lessons of very recent past.

US defense and foreign policy is to support its own strategic goals. If they happen to align with India's that is good and should be encouraged but reliance of the US to do our spade work is a bit too much to expect. We need to do the heavy lift ourselves to have any say in the future of our neighborhood. US will only do what is necessary for its goals and leave us to deal with the consequences unless we are careful. If our "outsourcing" of the pakistan problem is any indicator of success we can only expect further trouble from Nepal, Srilanka and the rest.

[SSridhar]

Black Carbon from South Asia Melting Tibetan Glaciers: China - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

Pollutants brought in by monsoon winds from South Asia — and not industrial emissions from China — are behind the melting of glaciers on the Tibetan plateau, a leading Chinese scientist has claimed.

Yao Tandong, director of the Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research at the official Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), warned that “about 90 per cent” of the glaciers on the plateau — known as the world’s “third pole” — were shrinking.

The process, he claimed, was being “accelerated by black carbon being transferred from South Asia to the Tibetan Plateau”, as reported in the state-run China Daily newspaper.

An investigation by researchers at CAS, using topographic maps and satellite images, had revealed “the retreat of 82 glaciers, area reduction by 7,090 glaciers and the mass-balance change of 15 glaciers”, the newspaper said.

Mr. Yao said there were “systematic differences” in the status of glaciers according to their location, with the most pronounced retreat observed in the southeastern Himalayan region.

“Some of the glaciers there”, he warned, “are very likely to disappear by 2030”. He said the shrinkage decreased from the Himalayas to the interior of the continent, with the smallest reductions in the western part, where some glaciers were also expanding.

The Chinese scientist said there were “two prevailing views” in the past: firstly, that pollution was not a factor; and secondly, that most pollutants came from the east, from China.

“But the latest investigations”, he claimed, “now show that black carbon generated from industrial production in South Asia is being taken to the Tibetan Plateau by the Indian monsoon in spring and summer”.

“The accumulation of black carbon on the plateau”, he added, “will accelerate the shrinking of glaciers, bringing with it persistent organic pollutants that will be deposited in the soil”.

[pankajs]

Black Carbon from South Asia Melting Tibetan Glaciers: China - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

Pollutants brought in by monsoon winds from South Asia — and not industrial emissions from China — are behind the melting of glaciers on the Tibetan plateau, a leading Chinese scientist has claimed.

Why not propose to establish an "International Peace Park" in Tibet under UN on the lines of Antarctic Treaty. Scientist from all over the world would be free to conduct scientific experiments on related topics after all Indus river originates in the Tibetan plateau in the vicinity of Lake Mansarovar. Tibet is also the source of most of the major rivers of Asia. They would try to increase awareness about the protection of the entire Tibetan ecosystem – its forests, wet lands, biodiversity and cryosphere – as a means to ensure the availability of adequate water in the long term. Demilitarization of Tibet would also be one amongst many CBMs between India and China after all both are nuclear powered states with an unsettled border. This eyeball to eyeball deployment can spark a nuclear war in Asia.

[SSridhar]

PM meets Xi and raises Brahmaputra issue - Economic Times

In the first-high level contact after the new Chinese leadership took over, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met President Xi Jinping and raised the issue of Beijing's proposal to construct three dams across the Brahmaputra river on its side.

Singh called on President Xi, who took over as President earlier this month as part of decadal change of power structure in China, on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit which the two leaders attended here.

This is the first face-to-face meeting between the two leaders at the highest level after the recent change in power structure in China.

"Water was discussed," official sources said tersely after a 25-minute meeting late last night after the summit without getting into specifics.

The Prime Minister is understood to have conveyed to President Xi concerns in India over the Chinese proposal to construct three dams across Brahmaputra.

India has said the proposal would affect water flow to India while China says it was just run-of-the mill project that would not hold water.

The entire expanse of the bilateral relationship was discussed and the meeting was very positive, the sources said.

The two leaders expressed regards for each other. All aspects of the relationship were discussed but the South China issue was not not discussed, the sources said.

Asked whether border and trade issues were discussed, the sources maintained that all aspects of bilateral relations came up for discussion.

Both expressed a desire to continue their relationship. The sources said during an informal discussion at the summit earlier in the day, President Xi told Singh that he was aware that the Prime Minister had good relations with his predecessor Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao and he would like to carry forward that.

Last week, in an interaction with BRICS journalists in Beijing, Xi had said he was looking forward to meeting Singh in Durban.

Xi had warm words about relations with India and proposed a five-point formula under which both the countries would accommodate each other's concerns in matters of "core interests".

Xi, who has also assumed the role of chief of the Communist Party and army, had said the boundary question was complex left behind by history and peace and tranquility should be maintained.

Pending settlement of the issue, both the countries should not allow differences to come in the way of overall development of the bilateral ties.

At the meeting, the Prime Minister invited President Xi to visit India to which he said he accepted it and would make the visit at an appropriate time.

Similarly, the President extended an invitation to Singh to visit China and he reciprocated it in a similar vein.

Singh was assisted by National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon while Xi was assisted by the new foreign minister, two politburo members and Yang Jeichi, state counsellor who has replaced Dai Binguo, who was the Special Representative with the Indian SR Menon for the dialogue.

[ashish raval]

I am not sure which babu is advising pm of India on its relations with china but it seems that fools in pm office is always taken in by even minor overtures done by Chinese to improve ties which are only done verbally. They fooled India in 1962 and they are fooling yet today. India has continued producing babus which probably have least IQ in terms of how to adhere to Indian national interest and learn how there are two faces of every nation on the international scenes.

China is the same nation which continues to develop string of pearls around India, continues to supply money, weapons, missiles, nuclear know how and every possible support to destabilise India via its proxy in Pakistan and now in Burma, srilanka and Bangladesh.

It is same nation which managed to bundle India out of international waters of south china sea, the only nation opposing India candidature in security council, crammed its military in Tibet and getting trained for high altitude warfare, tried to outclass India in every possible oil resource acquisition around the world, outclassed India from Africa by subsidising it's firms and not allowing Indian firms to have firm grip there, outright brought African governments, censored India relation with Taiwan and forced to issue statement on one china policy, building dams on India centric rivers, abetting building projects in pok, reduced Indian influence in Afghanistan and brought government mines....now I don't even want to continue the list because frankly speaking if any babu in ministry has even got a iota of common sense he or she would not even give a thought of extending a friendhip hand to such a blatant anti india nation.

The only thing you can do with lizards is have chai biscuit sessions, laughs and discussions but on ground we should work in every anti Chinese forums around the world and support them in every way via raw and other governmental agencies.

Nobody in world not even pukes or noko trust them except while begging while continue to curtail lizard influence in their national policy making.

I have no idea what is manmohan's fascination about china but frankly speaking it is idiotic and does not justify what his academic achievement suggests.

I am planning to send a copy of kautilya's arthashashtra for him to read through.

China was a rival or atleast not a friend in known Indian history, it is not a friend and it will not be a friend. They are what they are strategic and trade threat to india and it should always be treated as one.

[Prem]

US wants Sprint-SoftBank deal to avoid Chinese network equipment:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/28/41557 ... -equipment

In order for the $20 billion acquisition of Sprint Nextel by Japan’s SoftBank to go ahead, the US government wants to oversee network equipment purchases in a bid to keep Huawei and ZTE products out of the nation’s infrastructure, reports The Wall Street Journal. Last year, a Congressional report labeled the two companies’ equipment as a national security risk, and SoftBank uses Huawei equipment, popular in many markets for its low prices, on its own network at home.Citing an unnamed source, The Journal explains that the government is expected to require notification in advance of any equipment purchases for the core of Sprint’s network. However, because of concerns about violating trade rules, it’s unlikely that there will be specific prohibitions against the two companies’ products.The news comes just as the latest US appropriations bill adds a provision requiring a number of departments to perform formal cyber espionage risk assessments before purchasing IT equipment. And while this additional restriction isn't likely to help already-strained US-China trade relations, The WSJ points out that a national security review is standard whenever a foreign company attempts to acquire a US wireless carrier, as was the case with T-Mobile’s acquisition of MetroPCS.

[Prem]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2032321/ ... china.html
U.S. to scrutinize IT system purchases with ties to China

Certain U.S. federal agencies could be hindered from buying information technology systems made by companies with links to the Chinese government under the new funding law signed by President Barack Obama earlier this week.
U.S. authorities will vet all IT system purchases made from the Commerce and Justice Departments, NASA, and the National Science Foundation, for possible security risks, according to section 516 of the new law.“Cyber-espionage or sabotage” risks will be taken into account, along with the IT system being “produced, manufactured, or assembled” by companies that are owned, directed or funded by the Chinese government.IT systems that are found to be of “national interest” can then be brought before U.S. lawmakers for appropriation.The funding law only extends until Sept. 30. But the inclusion of the security checks comes as China’s is being increasingly blamed for hacking attacks against international companies. The most recent allegations have come from a U.S. security firm, which has said its traced an overwhelming number of cyber attacks to a possible military unit of China’s People’s Liberation Army.The security concerns are also tarnishing the reputation of Chinese tech firms with alleged links to the nation’s government. Last year, a U.S. congressional committee concluded that telecommunication equipment suppliers Huawei Technologies and ZTE, could be influenced by the Chinese government to undermine U.S. security. Both the U.S. government and U.S. firms should buy from other vendors, the committee advised.But the new security checks included in the U.S. funding law could affect a whole host of technology vendors with ties to China. One of those is Chinese PC maker Lenovo, which acquired the ThinkPad line from IBM in 2005.“This could turn out to be a harsh blow for companies like Lenovo that have so far escaped the spotlight trained on Huawei and ZTE,” wrote former U.S. Department of Homeland Security official Stewart Baker on his blog.

[Prem]

US B-2 stealth bombers in South Korea drill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21963369

he US has flown two B-2 stealth bombers over South Korea as part of a military exercise.The US said it demonstrated its forces could conduct "long-range, precision strikes quickly and at will".The move follows strong rhetoric from Pyongyang and comes a day after it cut a military hotline with the South.The hotline had been used mainly to facilitate cross-border travel at a joint industrial complex, which was said to be operating normally.North Korea continues to search for new ways to issue threats - partly in an attempt by the regime to consolidate power at home, and partly in the hope that the US cancels its exercises as President Clinton did. As Pyongyang does so, the West calls their bluff and continues to carry out drills and B-52 flights over the peninsula.This concerning pattern occurs in the absence of any regular engagement between the US and North Korea. Should it persist, the risk of miscalculation by either side will rise.North Korea could read a future US move incorrectly and determine that an imminent and existential threat to the regime exists - then choose to pre-empt it. Or, if too many of its bluffs are called, Pyongyang may feel that its rhetoric no longer deters. It may decide that more aggressive action is needed to match its words.
What is driving North Korea's threats?
Pyongyang has been angered both by annual US-South Korea military drills, and the fresh UN sanctions that followed its third nuclear test on 12 February.North Korea is not thought to have the technology to strike the US mainland with either a nuclear weapon or a ballistic missile, but it is capable of targeting some US military bases in Asia with its mid-range missiles.The US military said in a statement that the B-2 flight showed US "capability to defend the Republic of Korea [South Korea] and to provide extended deterrence to our allies in the Asia-Pacific region".The two nuclear-capable planes flew from Whitman Air force Base in Missouri to South Korea as part of a "single, continuous" round trip mission during which they dropped "inert munitions on the Jik Do Range", the statement said.The US said earlier this month that nuclear-capable B-52 bombers were taking part in the annual joint exercises with South Korea, prompting an angry response from Pyongyang.Meanwhile, in a phone call on Wednesday, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told his South Korean counterpart Kim Kwan-Jin that the US would provide "unwavering" support to South Korea.He also told his South Korean counterpart that the US-South Korea alliance was "instrumental in maintaining stability on the Korean peninsula", Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statemen

[RajeshA]

It is in fact shameful that USA has been trying colored revolutions and spring seasons in other countries but could not do a thing in North Korea, even though it would have received active support for it from Japan and to some extent from South Korea as well.

Instead USA has allowed China to set up another Doberman on the Pacific. But then probably USA is not really interested in solutions, and it suits USA perfectly that two of its partners have become dependent on USA security umbrella. Even the news that North Korea can target USA is also probably going to be used only to increase funding for the Military Industrial Complex rather than to solve problems.

USA is basically a double-crossing wimp! Japan and South Korea should look to build a better security which can take care of their needs. They should also try and solve the problem rather than continue to live with it.

Germans solved the problem, because USA wanted it solved. Multiple American Presidents wanted the Berlin Wall torn down and they went and they publicly called for it. When did an American President do the same on the DMZ? Obama went there and spoke out some inanities.

USA wanted the Berlin Wall to fall because they saw Russia as a enemy. With China, USA is simply sharing a bed! Sometimes the partners get all lovey-dovey and sometimes they have a quarrel. That is the de-facto G-2!

Japan and South Korea need to think for themselves!

[Prem]

USA wanted the Berlin Wall to fall because they saw Russia as a enemy. With China, USA is simply sharing a bed! Sometimes the partners get all lovey-dovey and sometimes they have a quarrel. That is the de-facto G-2!
Japan and South Korea need to think for themselves!

Ask Acharya San !! They are partner but dont trust each other. Suddenly they both have realized its the same sex union and they both are trying to score and do each other. This unnatural union is against the nature and scripture. If continue, It will curse and doom them both .

[SSridhar]

India & China must deepen military ties: Xi - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

China’s new leader Xi Jinping has made a pitch for India and China to boost military contact and deepen trust, State media quoted him as saying during his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Durban late on Wednesday evening.

Mr. Xi, who took over as the head of the Communist Party and military last November, told Dr. Singh during their talks on the sidelines of the just-concluded BRICS Summit that both countries needed to broaden exchanges between their armed forces.

He called for both countries to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to the border dispute “as soon as possible,” the State-run Xinhua news agency quoted him as saying.

Wednesday’s remarks are the first detailed comments by China’s new leader, who took over as President on March 17, on how he plans to take ties with India forward. In a letter to Dr. Singh in January and in remarks to a group of reporters from BRICS countries earlier this month, Mr. Xi had only appeared to stress continuity in ties from the previous government, reiterating a “five-point” proposal put forward last year by his predecessor Hu Jintao, and not offering new ideas.

Mr. Xi’s particular emphasis on expanding mutual “military and security trust” underscored concerns in both countries on recently strained defence ties, which were suspended for a year in 2010 after China refused to host the then head of the Army’s Northern Command, citing its sensitivities in Kashmir.

More recently, China has appeared more eager to boost ties, Indian officials say, indicating its willingness by hosting Indian Army officers from Jammu and Kashmir in recent delegations and also taking a delegation to facilities in Tibet for the first time in many years.

China’s change in posture, analysts note, has coincided with increasing tensions faced by Beijing in the South China Sea and with Japan over East China Sea islands.

After taking over in November, Mr. Xi has rapidly consolidated his control over the influential People’s Liberation Army faster than his predecessor, Mr. Hu, already making more than half a dozen visits to military bases. Mr. Xi also served as an aide to an influential general early on his career, and has a network of ties among fellow “princelings” in the Army.

Wednesday’s meeting in Durban marked Mr. Xi’s first meeting with top Indian leaders after he took over as President.

On the border issue, he said, “China and India should improve and make good use of the mechanism of special representatives to strive for a fair, rational solution framework acceptable to both sides as soon as possible,” Xinhua said.

He also called on both sides to “continue to safeguard peace in their border areas and prevent the issue from affecting bilateral relations.”

Mr. Xi described both countries as having “a similar historic mission to boost their social and economic development,” and said they were in “an important period of strategic opportunities.”

“China, which regards its ties with India as one of the most important bilateral relationships, commits itself to pushing forward the two countries’ strategic cooperative partnership,” he said adding that both sides needed “to maintain high-level reciprocal visits and contacts, make full use of political dialogues and consultations at various levels to strengthen strategic and political communication.”

Xinhua quoted Dr. Singh as saying he hoped India and China “would respect each other’s core interests and major concerns, deepen mutual strategic trust, strengthen coordination and cooperation on international affairs, and safeguard peace and stability in the region and the world at large.”

He also appeared to reassure China about its recent concerns over India’s possible role in the United States’ “pivot” or rebalancing to Asia, and strengthening of military alliances in the region, seen by many in China as a move to contain its rise.

Dr. Singh said India “adheres to an independent foreign policy” and “will not be used as a tool to contain China.”

He also sought to assuage Chinese concerns on Tibet. He said India “recognises the Tibet Autonomous Region is a part of the Chinese territory and that India will not allow Tibetans to conduct political activities against China in India,” Xinhua quoted him as saying during Wednesday’s meeting. {Did Manmohan Singh extract a similar assurance from China on J&K ? Why should we reeatedly 'assuage' China's feelings when it is beginning to vaccilate even on the status of Sikkim ? Total dhimmis, these leaders.}

[svinayak]

USA wanted the Berlin Wall to fall because they saw Russia as a enemy. With China, USA is simply sharing a bed! Sometimes the partners get all lovey-dovey and sometimes they have a quarrel. That is the de-facto G-2!
Japan and South Korea need to think for themselves!

Ask Acharya San !! They are partner but dont trust each other. Suddenly they both have realized its the same sex union and they both are trying to score and do each other. This unnatural union is against the nature and scripture. If continue, It will curse and doom them both .

How many times the US President has visited PRC from 2008. = 12 Times!

[pankajs]

China Striving to Dominate the Nearby Seas

The appearance of the Chinese task force in these waters bears watching, for it is yet another example of Beijing asserting its territorial claims to the entire South China Sea. What is striking, however, is that this effort is directed at Malaysia rather than Vietnam or the Philippines. Unlike Hanoi and Manila, Kuala Lumpur has generally been quiet about its dispute with Beijing over their territorial claims; it is not clear why Beijing would choose to underscore its claims against Malaysia at this moment.

Indeed, given reports of a Chinese law enforcement ship shooting at a Vietnamese fishing boat, as well as the decision of the Philippines to press for arbitration in its dispute with the PRC over their respective South China Sea claims, one would have expected Beijing to not antagonize yet another claimant. Moreover, that the Chinese ships are part of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, rather than drawn from one of the various law enforcement agencies, is even more disturbing, for it may indicate a greater willingness to militarize the disputes.

There had been hopes that the new Chinese leadership of Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang would pursue a more conciliatory line once they had formally acceded to both Party and governmental positions. Instead, Chinese policy on maritime boundary disputes appears to be hardening.

In this light, recent Chinese actions, including reportedly locking a fire control radar on Japanese vessels, take on a much more alarming hue. Given the announced consolidation of the Chinese civilian maritime law enforcement entities (including China Maritime Surveillance, which reportedly fired upon the Vietnamese fishing vessel), Beijing appears intent upon establishing “escalation dominance” within its littoral waters with a range of options, including civilian agencies that can use force and less-than-lethal behaviors by the PLA.

For China’s neighbors—and the United States—a confrontation appears to be increasingly hard to avoid.

[pankajs]

LYONS: How to neutralize China’s military threat

One of the key weaknesses of the pivot strategy is that it does not address China’s development of a globally deployable military force and the establishment of nuclear and non-nuclear and proxy states, such as North Korea and Iran. As Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, has pointed out, such an imbalance has the potential for China to create a number of “Chinese pivots” that could quickly overstress and thus limit or deter U.S. strategy.Another element that cannot be discounted is the potential for a large Chinese nuclear breakout. China has more than 3,000 miles of underground reinforced tunnels for their fixed and mobile strategic weapons. In a Feb. 11 Wall Street Journal article by Bret Stephens, Gen. Victor Esin, former chief of staff of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, highlighted the “stealthy” rise of China to a position of nuclear parity with the United States and Russia. He stated that China may have 850 warheads ready to launch, and he estimated China’s inventory of nuclear weapons at between 1,600 and 1,800 warheads, as compared with the current U.S. estimate of China having 200 to 400. Many reports note the administration wants to reduce U.S. warheads to 1,000 or fewer.Gen. Esin went on to state that he has solid evidence that China conducted a multiple-warhead test in July 2012, and a month later, launched a new, long-range multiple-warhead-capable missile from a submarine. Any future START talks with Russia must recognize China’s nuclear inventory.Clearly, we need an immediate “shot across China’s bow” that would have an impact. Putting anti-ship ballistic missiles on U.S. ships, submarines and aircraft could be just such a shot, threatening China’s navy to show them they will gain nothing by using their fleet against the United States and its allies. Such a capability could be accomplished in the near term as a relatively inexpensive option, while posing a risk to China’s ever-expanding surface navy.

The potential impact of introducing anti-ship ballistic missiles into our naval and air forces would be significantly multiplied if we could sell such a capability to our allies, provided an agreement can be reached with Russia to retire the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. This probably is feasible, since, according to Russia’s Gen. Esin, if China does not stop expanding its nuclear inventory, Russia will consider abandoning the INF Treaty. Another action that we can take is to create an Asian regional long-range sensor network that would provide our allies real-time warning of broad Chinese military activity. For such a network to become a reality, we should capitalize on the recent decision to install a second Forward Based X-Band Transportable (FBX-T) radar in southern Japan by placing a similar radar in the Philippines. We currently have an FBX-T radar in Shariki, Japan, with a 600-to-1,200-mile range. Installing an updated 3,700-mile-range SBX radar in the Philippines would permit continuous missile and aircraft coverage of all nations in the western Pacific littoral, including China.Even in this tight budget climate, we should find the funding to pursue the development of energy weapons. For example, a railgun with “shotgun” pellets flying at Mach 5 has the potential to produce a “steel cloud,” which would shred most missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft flying through it. In tests, the railgun has fired artillery-size projectiles up to speeds of Mach 5 with a potential range of 62 miles. Such a system would be quite adaptable to a destroyer-sized ship.Clearly, we have a number of options that can be brought to bear, including selling nuclear submarines to allies such as Australia and Japan. However, all our conventional options must be underpinned by a credible nuclear deterrent. Therefore, it is absolutely essential to modernize our nuclear-weapons inventory. To make our options a reality, the Obama administration needs to recognize China’s strategic objectives and the threat they pose to our national interests and those of our allies, and institute programs that pose an unacceptable risk to China.

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

[RajeshA]

I think what everybody concerned - the West, India, Southeast Asian countries, and through Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei perhaps the Ummah as well is to start calling South China Sea and Indo-China Sea! ASEAN should take the initiative.

[abhishek_sharma]

Interview: Lee Kuan Yew on the Future of U.S.- China Relations

Will the Chinese Be Supreme?

[Prem]

http://247wallst.com/2013/04/08/chinese ... rency-war/
Chinese Economists Say Japan Launching a New Currency War
Chinese Economists Say Japan Launching a New Currency War -

Now that the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has begun its monthly purchases of more than $70 billion in assets, the country has come under increasing criticism for starting a new currency war. A particularly vocal opponent has been the People’s Bank of China (PBOC)Singapore’s South China Morning Post reported over the weekend that some PBOC economists are “livid” over the BOJ’s plan to double its monetary base by 2015 by adding liquidity to the Japanese economy in the hopes of ending more than 20 years of deflation.
To the Chinese economists, the threat to the country’s export-driven economy must be countered by devaluing the yuan. These economists want the PBOC to sell (flood?) the market with yuan and purchase U.S. dollars.If China does not devalue, it risks a flood of new “hot money” inflows that take advantage of the carry trade between the yen and the yuan. That is, borrowing in low-interest yen and investing in higher interest markets, such as China. If that happens, not only are Chinese exports threatened, but the specter of inflation rises again in China.Another country that stands to be hard hit by Japan’s asset purchases is South Korea, where exports account for nearly 60% of gross domestic products. Complaints, and perhaps some Korean counter to Japan’s asset buying, are likely to appear fairly soon.

[Rony]

The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy with Edward Luttwak

[RoyG]

Compared to the Chinese our civilization produced a far more developed concept of comprehensive national power and diplomatic and military strategy. The dragon is more like a school kid with a bad temper tantrum.

[youtube]KGV1FiCfyK4&list=PLrR2OTOrNPrhiTv3m5lhklOzTAXtqrFMk&index=14[/youtube]

[pankajs]

Dragon in a Bathtub: Chinese Nuclear Submarines and the South China Sea

When attempting to explain this upsurge in Chinese pugnacity, analysts have pointed to the rising power's selective interpretation of the law of the sea and growing unwillingness to compromise over what it calls its “blue national soil”, particularly when confronted with an increasingly intransigent domestic populace. Others have pointed to the more immediately tangible benefits to be derived from the presence of numerous offshore oil and gas deposits within contested waters. Strangely enough, however, one of the principal explanations for China’s increased prickliness towards foreign military presence within its maritime backyard has yet to be clearly articulated.

Indeed, not only is the South China Sea one of the world’s busiest trade thoroughfares, it also happens to be the roaming pen of China’s emerging ballistic missile submarine fleet, which is stationed at Sanya, on the tropical Island of Hainan. The United States, with its array of advanced anti-submarine warfare assets and hydrographic research vessels deployed throughout the region, gives Beijing the unwelcome impression that Uncle Sam can’t stop peering into its nuclear nursery. When Chinese naval strategists discuss their maritime environs, the sentiment they convey is one of perpetual embattlement. Pointing to the US’s extended network of allies in the Indo-Pacific region, and to their own relative isolation, Chinese strategists fear that Beijing’s growing navy could be ensnared within the first island chain-a region which they describe as stretching from Japan all the way to the Indonesian archipelago. Applying this maritime siege mentality to naval planning; they fret that the US Navy could locate and neutralize their fledgling undersea deterrent in the very first phases of conflict, before it even manages to slip through the chinks of first island chain.

This concern helps explain China's growing intolerance to foreign military activities in the South China Sea.

In public, China's protests over foreign military activities are couched in territorial terms. In private, however, Chinese policymakers readily acknowledge the centrality of the nuclear dimension. Thus in the course of a discussion with a former Chinese official, I was told that “even though territorial issues are of importance, our major concern is the sanctity of our future sea-based deterrent.”

Unlike the Soviets, however, who could confine the movements of their boomers to the frigid, lonely waters of the Barents and Okhotsk seas, the Chinese have chosen to erect their nuclear submarine base smack-bang in the middle of one of the world’s busiest maritime highways.

Needless to say, this location is hardly ideal. When it comes to picking strategic real-estate in their near seas, the Chinese have but a limited roster of options. After all, their maritime backyard is girded by a sturdy palisade of states which increasingly view China’s meteoric rise, and attendant truculence at sea, with a mixture of alarm and dismay. Like a dragon caught floundering in a bathtub, China’s naval ambitions are simply too broad and grandiose for its constricted maritime geography. This perceived lack of strategic depth provides a partial explanation to Beijing’s increased obduracy over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In order to better protect its valuable subsurface assets, China aims to establish a ring of maritime watch towers or bastions around Hainan. Absolute control over the remote Spratly islands, in addition to the more proximate Paracels, would greatly facilitate this concentric defensive configuration.