People's Republic of China Nov 22, 2009

[VinodTK]

Xinjiang's irate minority Uighurs begin to worry Beijing

China’s troubles with the minority Uighurs are not new. But with the breakup of the Soviet Union two decades ago and the rise of the Islamist Taliban in what was once Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, the region’s dynamics have changed. Since the early 1990s, China has faced recurrent waves of unrest in Xinjiang as well as widespread acts of violence, some of which appear to have been terrorist acts carried out by the disgruntled Uighurs.

[arun]

The Paranoid Republic of China bans media coverage of 18 subjects.

The banned subjects include:

Yuan revaluation, Corruption and problems in Tibet and the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region, Difficulties faced by university students in finding jobs after graduation, Food safety, Rising prices of cooking oil, High medical fees, Disparity of wealth, Reform of the registration system separating urban dwellers from rural residents, Forecasts of appointments for Communist Party leaders, Expansion of autonomy at universities, The collapse of school buildings in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake and delays in reconstruction, The beating death of a steel plant president in Jilin province, Collusion between police and gangsters in Chongqing, Rising real estate prices and the housing shortage and Real estate developers trying to increase land prices:

China bans reporting on 18 subjects

BY KENJI MINEMURA THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
2010/03/26

………………… "Most of the subjects that people are interested in have been banned. We don't know what to report on," said an official at a Chinese newspaper.

Asahi Shimbun

[ramana]

Susan L. Shirk, "China: Fragile Superpower: How China's Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise"
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA | 2007 | ISBN 0195306090 | 335 pages |

Once a sleeping giant, China today is the world's fastest growing economy--the leading manufacturer of cell phones, laptop computers, and digital cameras--a dramatic turn-around that alarms many Westerners. But in China: The Fragile Superpower, Susan L. Shirk opens up the black box of Chinese politics and finds that the real danger lies elsewhere--not in China's astonishing growth, but in the deep insecurity of its leaders. China's leaders face a troubling paradox: the more developed and prosperous the country becomes, the more insecure and threatened they feel. Shirk, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State responsible for China, knows many of today's Chinese rulers personally and has studied them for three decades. She offers invaluable insight into how they think--and what they fear. In this revealing book, readers see the world through the eyes of men like President Hu Jintao and former President Jiang Zemin. We discover a fragile communist regime desperate to survive in a society turned upside down by miraculous economic growth and a stunning new openness to the greater world. Indeed, ever since the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, Chinese leaders have been haunted by the fear that their days in power are numbered.

[hulaku]

A new development has come to my notice. The Chinese Embassy has stopped issuing visas to people born in Jammu and Kashmir.

Earlier they were giving it on a slip but they have now stopped it altogether.

Maybe someone has more information on this issue.

[Philip]

If true,then the GOI should simplu stop issuing visas to Chinese workers in India.

[svinayak]

A new development has come to my notice. The Chinese Embassy has stopped issuing visas to people born in Jammu and Kashmir.

Earlier they were giving it on a slip but they have now stopped it altogether.

Maybe someone has more information on this issue.

This is the start of the plan and action in J&K at the Leh sector.
We will see what kind of developments

[Sri]

The Coming China-India Conflict: Is War Inevitable?

Jonathan Holslag's interview in Time.

[Sri]

China's Female Astronauts: Must Be a Married Mom

he men chosen to lead China into outer space are often referred to locally as "superhuman beings" — and not just because they train to cross the final frontier. Would-be taikonauts have to meet near impossible standards that are meant to weed out the less-than-flawless. Chinese astronauts cannot suffer from chronic sore throats or runny noses. They mustn't have food restrictions, strong regional accents, ringworm, cavities or scars. Bad breath, body odor and a snoring problem are all immediate disqualifiers. And if China's spacemen are expected to satisfy an unlikely string of qualifications, so too are its new spacewomen — with two notable additional criteria. China's first two female reserve astronauts, selected earlier this month from a pool of 15 female fighter pilots, were required to be wives and mothers.
The reasoning behind the prerequisite, according to officials, is that spaceflight could potentially harm the women's fertility.

[csharma]

From the Time magazine interview

In India, there is already a widespread wariness in the media and in the public domain of China's designs for the region. Is there a similar nationalist feeling in China, which in many ways is far more developed and capable than India?
Yes, you can clearly see that Beijing officials are increasingly worried about India's ambitions. If you look at the writings of Chinese experts, they refer to Indian military posturing in the Indian Ocean and also to military partnerships India is developing with several countries in Southeast Asia and East Africa. In the public realm, Chinese Netizens' views of India are very negative. You get the sense the Chinese never seemed to expect India to climb up to the ranks of the great powers. Now, as India attempts to make that leap, the Chinese are very worried of its impact on China's primacy in Asia.

So much for the great thinkers in China.

Btw, has anyone read the book? Is it worth buying. I bought a book on China and India back in 2004 and the American "experts" were saying China does not care about India but India cares a lot about China. Things seemed to have turned out a little differently. So I do not want to pay thirty dollars for similar garbage.

[ramana]

War is not inevitable but India should be prepared for it. Once the PRC economic bubble bursts based on US actions, the PRC will be hardpressed to retain their image of dominance. Hence there could be a skrimish to keep their H&D intact. Remember Commies are latter day Islamists.

[arun]

The Coming China-India Conflict: Is War Inevitable?

Jonathan Holslag's interview in Time.

Excerpt from the Jonathan Holslag interview:

Beijing officials are increasingly worried about India's ambitions. If you look at the writings of Chinese experts, they refer to Indian military posturing in the Indian Ocean and also to military partnerships India is developing with several countries in Southeast Asia and East Africa. In the public realm, Chinese Netizens' views of India are very negative. You get the sense the Chinese never seemed to expect India to climb up to the ranks of the great powers. Now, as India attempts to make that leap, the Chinese are very worried of its impact on China's primacy in Asia.

Jonathan Holslag is correct in saying the above. India is certainly viewed as a threat in P.R.China.

34% of P.R. Chinese view us as a threat. That puts us in the number 3 position for nation’s viewed as posing a threat after the US (50%) and Japan (45%).

14% of P.R. Chinese actually view us as the greatest threat to their security in the next 10 years. In this category we are joint number 2 threat after the US (34%) and tie for second place with Japan (14%).

Read it all in the Lowy Institute China Poll 2009:

Click on Download Item

[Prem]

http://news300.info/2010/03/30/china-crunch-time/
( Bottom Line china needs Market and let Indian provide them after hard bargain)

China: Crunch Time
The global system is undergoing profound change. Three powers — Germany, China and Iran — face challenges forcing them to refashion the way they interact with their regions and the world. First we examined Germany. We now examine China.U.S.-Chinese relations have become tenser in recent months, with the United States threatening to impose tariffs unless China agrees to revalue its currency and, ideally, allow it to become convertible like the yen or euro. China now follows Japan and Germany as one of the three major economies after the United States. Unlike the other two, it controls its currency’s value, allowing it to decrease the price of its exports and giving it an advantage not only over other exporters to the United States but also over domestic American manufacturers. The same is true in other regions that receive Chinese exports, such as Europe
An Inherently Unstable Economic System
The Chinese people rebel when work is not available and conditions reach extremes. It must be remembered that of China’s 1.3 billion people, more than 600 million urban citizens live on an average of about $7 a day, while 700 million rural people live on an average of $2 a day, and that is according to Beijing’s own well-scrubbed statistics.There is also the issue of consumption. Chinese statistics have always been dodgy, but according to Beijing’s own figures, China has a tiny consumer base. This base is not much larger than that of France, a country with roughly one twentieth China’s population and just over half its gross domestic product (GDP). China’s economic system is obviously geared toward exports, not expanding consumer credit.
Rethinking Bretton Woods
Bretton Woods is the ultimate reason why the Chinese have succeeded economically for the last generation. As part of Bretton Woods, the United States opens its markets, eschewing protectionist policies in general and mercantilist policies in particular. Eventually the United States extended this privilege to China to turn the tables on the Soviet Union. All China has to do is produce — it doesn’t matter how — and it will have a market to sell to.But this may be changing. Under President Barack Obama, the United States is considering fundamental changes to the Bretton Woods arrangements. Ostensibly, this is to update the global financial system and reduce the chances of future financial crises. But out of what we have seen so far, the National Export Initiative (NEI) the White House is promulgating is much more mercantilist. It espouses doubling U.S. exports in five years, specifically by targeting additional sales to large developing states, with China at the top of the list.
China’s Limited Options
China, which unlike Japan is not a U.S. ally, would have an even harder time resisting should Washington pressure Beijing to buy more U.S. goods. Dependence upon a certain foreign market means that market can easily force changes in the exporter’s trade policies. Refusal to cooperate means losing access, shutting the exports down. Japan’s economy, in 1990 and now, only depended upon international trade for approximately 15 percent of its GDP. For China, that figure is 36 percent, and that is after suffering the hit to exports from the global recession. (Beijing can’t simply dump the debt it already holds without taking a monumental loss, because for every seller there must be a buyer), but even this would be a hollow threat.First, Chinese currency reserves exist because Beijing does not want to invest its income in China. Underdeveloped capital markets cannot absorb such an investment, and the reserves represent the government’s piggybank. Getting a 2 percent return on a rock-solid asset is good enough in China’s eyes. Second, those bond purchases largely fuel U.S. consumers’ ability to purchase Chinese goods. In the event the United States targets Chinese exports, the last thing China would want is to compound the damage. Third, a cold stop in bond purchases would encourage the U.S. administration — and the American economy overall — to balance its budgets. However painful such a transition may be, it would not be much as far as retaliation measures go: “forcing” a competitor to become economically efficient and financially responsible is not a winning strategy. Granted, interest rates would rise in the United States due to the reduction in available capital — the Chinese internal estimate is by 0.75 percentage points — and that could pinch a great many sectors, but that is nothing compared to the tsunami of pain that the Chinese would be feeling.STRATFOR sees a race on, but it isn’t a race between the Chinese and the Americans or even China and the world. It’s a race to see what will smash China first, its own internal imbalances or the U.S. decision to take a more mercantilist approach to international trade.

[arun]

The Coming China-India Conflict: Is War Inevitable?

Jonathan Holslag's interview in Time.

Excerpt from the Jonathan Holslag interview:

Beijing officials are increasingly worried about India's ambitions. If you look at the writings of Chinese experts, they refer to Indian military posturing in the Indian Ocean and also to military partnerships India is developing with several countries in Southeast Asia and East Africa. In the public realm, Chinese Netizens' views of India are very negative. You get the sense the Chinese never seemed to expect India to climb up to the ranks of the great powers. Now, as India attempts to make that leap, the Chinese are very worried of its impact on China's primacy in Asia.

Jonathan Holslag is correct in saying the above. India is certainly viewed as a threat in P.R.China.

34% of P.R. Chinese view us as a threat. That puts us in the number 3 position for nation’s viewed as posing a threat after the US (50%) and Japan (45%).

14% of P.R. Chinese actually view us as the greatest threat to their security in the next 10 years. In this category we are joint number 2 threat after the US (34%) and tie for second place with Japan (14%).

Read it all in the Lowy Institute China Poll 2009:

Click on Download Item

For another view on how P.R. China views India, “China Debates the Future Security Environment” by Michael Pillsbury of the US National Defense University published in January 2000 is also useful.

Particularly see Chapter 3 titled “Japan and India: Dangerous Democracies”

CHINA DEBATES the FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

[abhishek_sharma]

Other countries are getting fed up with China

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... with_china

Five prominent members of the Group of 20 leading economies, including the US and UK, sent a coded rebuke to China on Tuesday against backsliding on economic agreements.

In a letter to the rest of the G20 that shows frustration at slow progress this year, the leaders warned: “Without co-operative action to make the necessary adjustments to achieve [strong and sustainable growth], the risk of future crises and low growth remain.”

G20 officials said the letter – signed by Stephen Harper and Lee Myung-bak, the Canadian and South Korean leaders who will chair the group’s two summits this year, Barack Obama, US president, Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president – was an attempt to restore flagging momentum to the international process.

Ottawa and Seoul are concerned that the G20 summits they will host, in June and November respectively, might fail to live up to expectations.

In a move that will irritate China, the five leaders specifically raised the issue of exchange rates in relation to reducing trade imbalances, a topic the G20 avoided in 2009 to help secure agreement at the London and Pittsburgh summits.

“We need to design co-operative strategies and work together to ensure that our fiscal, monetary, foreign exchange, trade and structural policies are collectively consistent with strong, sustainable and balanced growth,” the letter said....

As well as refusing to budge on its currency, China has been obstructing the G20 process this year. It has hampered efforts by the International Monetary Fund to issue a report which Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director, told the Financial Times in January would conclude that national strategies for growth around the world “will not add up”.

The leaders’ letter makes reference to the slow progress of this process, urging all G20 members to “move quickly” to “report robustly on what each of us can do to contribute to strong sustainable and balanced global growth”.

[SSridhar]

India denies 'market economy tag' to PRC

India says it will be difficult to give a ‘market economy’ status to China as it has refused to provide information on key business aspects such as land laws, minimum wages and accounting systems.

A market economy status will mean that India will have to accept all economic data including on product prices supplied by China. This will make it difficult to fight anti-dumping cases against Chinese companies.

China has refused to answer a detailed questionnaire sent by India seeking information on what it takes to do business there and if the country meets the necessary conditions for a market status. It says the issue is political.

“Since we did make a move in the right direction and were snubbed, the onus is on them to make the next move,” a commerce department official said.

India is not obligated to recognise China as a market economy till 2016 as per the country’s accession agreement under the World Trade Organisation.

However, about 60 countries including Australia, South Korea, Brazil and the Asean countries have granted the recognition to China.

It has now been mounting pressure on India on the ground that its mechanisms were all transparent now. Some economists say it is not in India’s interest to delay.

“China has become our largest trade partner in recent times and it is also becoming a capital rich country and an important source of investment. It will not pay to deny it market economy status for a long time,” said Ram Upendra Das, senior fellow, RIS for developing countries.

One of the reasons India has been deferring giving China a market economy status is that it could increase dumping of cheap goods from the neighbouring country.

It would be difficult for India to prove dumping, export price of a good is higher than its price in domestic market, by Chinese companies. Right now India has the freedom to benchma

India can, however, question chinese data once it gives the country a market economy status. “If we recognise China as market economy, we will be well within our rights to question every non-market action taken by them,” Mr Das said.

[Ameet]

Journalists’ E-Mails Hacked in China

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/world ... china.html

In what appeared to be a coordinated assault, the e-mail accounts of more than a dozen rights advocates, academics and journalists who cover China have been compromised by unknown intruders. A Chinese human rights organization also said that hackers had disabled its Web site for five days in a row.

The infiltrations, which involved Yahoo e-mail accounts, appeared to be aimed at people who write about China and Taiwan, rendering their accounts inaccessible, according to those who were affected. In the case of this reporter, hackers altered e-mail settings so that all correspondence was surreptitiously forwarded to another e-mail address.

A report issued by Symantec on Monday found that nearly 30 percent of attacks had originated from computers in China, and about 20 percent of those had come from Shaoxing, in Zhejiang Province.

[chaanakya]

Possibility of chinese meltdown

If China melts down ....

S. Balakrishnan

It's the country with the world's largest foreign exchange reserves, built out of a gigantic and dynamic export machine. Yet, in recent weeks, it's being called a bubble.

All of a sudden, China is out of favour with some big name investors, like Mr Marc Faber. Mr Jim Chanos, a well-known hedge fund manager, thinks disaster is lurking.

Citibank economists, led by Mr William Buiter, a former Bank of England policymaker, warns of a collapse, as does Harvard's Mr Kenneth Rogoff, also a former Chief Economist of the IMF.

On the surface, it's a surprising prediction.

How could the world's fastest growing economy having over $ 2 trillion in its kitty be talked about so cavalierly? China has come out of last year's global economic crisis more or less unscathed, thanks to the rapid fire response of its government, which has been unsparing in its fiscal and monetary stimuli.

Engineered boom

Precisely, say critics. The economy is in the midst of an engineered boom - ‘the greatest bubble in history', one calls it.

What are the proximate reasons?

Stock prices are up sharply (although still well off 2007 highs). Property prices are zooming skywards. Mainly responsible for the latter are easy and cheap bank funds. Rising incomes are driving more residential investment, but a good bit of it could be ‘flipping' – buying with an eye on selling for short-term gain.

A number of local governments have also got into the game. Controlling, as they do, vast tracts of developable land, the temptation to build and quickly offload in a red hot market is too much to resist.

Lethal combination

It's this combination of loose bank lending, leveraged households, property developers and local governments, working on the assumption that prices will go up forever, that could be lethal.

At the same time, there are vocal calls for the yuan to be allowed to appreciate, given the strong external and reserves position. So it seems strange that a section of economists and the market is forecasting a hard landing for China.

It's plausible. We have seen the havoc wrought when asset prices implode. It brings down with it overextended banks and home loan borrowers in the millions. In China's case, local bodies, which ill-advisedly have got into property ventures, are also vulnerable.

Key question

The key question is how a possible meltdown of China's markets will affect the rest of the world.

Commodity producers would be the worst hit. China is a major buyer of all – energy, ores, metals, agris. (The coin's other side is that the consequential blow to commodity prices is good for consumers).

Trade linkages are mostly one-sided, with China dominating exports. But its imports of sophisticated capital goods, durables and luxuries will suffer.

Of course, investor sentiment on all emerging markets will sour. That means falling stock markets and asset prices everywhere.

China's impact could be as significant on the way down as on its way up.

Looks like meltdown may be good for India in many ways, some outlines above and some are not.

Source:-Business Line, 31-3-2010

[VinodTK]

Mongolia: Pentagon Trojan Horse Wedged Between China And Russia

U.S. Marines were deployed to the capital of Mongolia, Ulan Bator (Ulaanbaatar), "for the first time in the history of the Marine Corps, Aug. 18, 2003 in support of Khaan Quest '03." [5]

The live-fire military exercise, which has been held every year since, is named after Genghis Khan. The announced purpose of the training exercises, run by the Pentagon's Pacific Command, has been to upgrade Mongolian soldiers to United Nations peacekeeping standards. Having little else in the way of exports, the nation's troops are paid comparatively handsomely for missions abroad.

As to the nature of the peacekeeping missions the Pentagon has been training Mongolia's armed forces to conduct, after the first Khaan Quest exercises - in which they were instructed by U.S. Marines in "peacekeeping operations such as check point, patrolling, immediate action drills, riot control and more" [6] - in August of 2003, the U.S. deployed troops they had instructed to Iraq in September and to Afghanistan in October.

[jagga]

India, China can't afford misperceptions: NSA

"When the world is changing so rapidly, and when uncertainty in the international system is at unprecedented levels, neither India nor China can afford misperceptions or distortions of policy caused by a lack of understanding of each other's compulsions and policy processes," he said

Ready to face any threat from China: Army chief

"The concern expressed is correct. Through you, I would like to pass it on to our countrymen that our Army -- and it is their Army -- will stand up to and measure up to any challenge that the nation will face," he told reporters before assuming office.

Asked how the Indian Army measured up vis-a-vis the Chinese Rapid Action Force, General Singh said, "I can assure you that for any challenges that are against us, we are very well prepared."

[SSridhar]

When will the mistrust end ?
The author is Director of the Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi and Professor of Chinese Studies at the Department of East Asian Studies, University of Delhi.

First, forget the border issue.
Secondly, China is quite sensitive to the ‘Tibet Issue.'
Thirdly, both sides must open up border trade at many points
Finally, only large-scale people-to-people contacts can wipe out this trust deficit.

What about the Chinese provocations Madam ? Isn't there any action from the Chinese side at all to reduce the mistrust, such as stopping to peddle the nonsense that Arunachal Pradesh is not part of India, or asking the ADB not to fund projects in that State, or object to visits by the Indian PM to that State etc ? What about the very serious policy that Chins has consistently followed for five decades now of bottling India through Pakistan ? Of its transfer of nuclear weapons and missiles ? Or, of the encirclement of India ?

It is these kinds of people who serve against Indian interests, by constantly asking India to give up .

[chaanakya]

A must watch video series about China and its people. I am posting part 1 of a 8 part series. Some part of the video series are touching beyond imagination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB70mWXrzEE

After watching the videos, my anger just turned into sympathy.

Indeed , Gandhian principle of Non Violence as ultimate power in the hands of ordinary citizens against repressive regimes world over is at work here.

[arun]

P.R. China’s message to India on the 60th Anniversary of the establishing of Sino-Indian Diplomatic Relations.

Panchashila seems out. It’s now Dasashila:

Message from Chinese President Hu Jintao to Indian PresidentPratibha Devisingh Patil on 60th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations

2010/04/01

Her Excellency Pratibha Patil
President of the Republic of India
New Delhi

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of diplomatic ties between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India, I wish to extend, on behalf of the Chinese people, warm congratulations and best wishes to you, and through you to your government and people.

China and India are close neighbors. The friendly exchanges between our two peoples date back to ancient times. Over the past 60 years since we established diplomatic relations, our bilateral ties have grown steadily thanks to joint efforts of both sides. In the new century, we have forged a strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity and formulated a ten-pronged strategy to deepen bilateral ties. Our political, economic, trade, cultural and people-to-people exchanges and cooperation have grown across the board and borne fruits. We have coordinated and worked with each other closely in international and regional affairs.

As two major emerging developing countries, China and India face common tasks and challenges, have extensive shared interests and shoulder important responsibilities. The good-neighborly friendship and cooperation between China and India and their common development not only benefit our two peoples but also serve peace and development of Asia and the entire world. The Chinese side deems its relationship with India one of its most important bilateral relationships. To develop a long-term and stable strategic and cooperative partnership with India is the set principle and policy of the Chinese government. We are ready to deepen friendship, enhance mutual trust, and broaden cooperation with India to tackle various global challenges, uphold the interests of developing countries and promote sustained, steady and in-depth growth of our strategic and cooperative partnership.

May the Republic of India enjoy prosperity and its people happiness.

May the friendship between the Chinese and Indian peoples grow with the times and be passed down from generation to generation.

Hu Jintao
President of The People's Republic of China
Beijing, 1 April 2010

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China

[csharma]

BM and B Raman talk about China.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/apr/ ... essive.htm

'China's positioning on the border is very aggressive'

China and Pakistan are coordinating effectively with each other to keep India [ Images ] engaged in South Asia, believes former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra.

"There seems to be some coordination between China and Pakistan in order to keep India engaged in South Asia so that India does not play a role in the rest of Asia," Mishra said.

"China's positioning on the Line of Actual Control has become very aggressive," he added.

Does it come as a surprise to Indians that China and Pakistan will do everything they can to keep India boxed in South Asia. They have also roped in Iran to deny any Indian role in Afghanistan. If India canot do anything about this, then it deserves the containment. Instead of looking upto US or Russia, India has to face China and it machinations. That alone will prove that she is a world power.


B Raman provides some balance with all this bonhomie between India and China recently.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r3746.html

INDIA: CAUGHT BETWEEN CHINA & THE DEEP SEA

Thus, the Chinese have been developing their infrastructure of potential military significance around India’s periphery. The Chinese think and plan long-term. Indian response is ad hoc. Just as New Delhi woke up late to the likely threats by land from the North, one realizes belatedly that the threats are from the South, East and West as well.

Whatever limited influence India has in South Asia is in danger of being eroded by the Chinese inroads. India is yet to work out a comprehensive response to it. All the sweet words of the 60th anniversary cannot hide this harsh reality. (

[Kavu]

What stops India from issuing visa's to Chinese citizens from Tibet region on a piece of paper, other than balls ofcourse; which we dont have as is evident, along with long term planning.

[SSridhar]

Kavu, you answered your own question.

[Hari Seldon]

Kavu, you answered your own question.

Actually, its that India has formally and completely accepted Tibet as a part of China, period. This was during ABV's time, IIRC. PRC for its part has never quite unambiguously said areas A,B or C are part of India.

[SSridhar]

Actually, its that India has formally and completely accepted Tibet as a part of China, period. This was during ABV's time, IIRC.

Hari, you are true in certain parts. I agree that ABV should not have been as categorical as he was especially when we knew that PRC was not going to be equally categorical. But, long before ABV said anything about Tibet and China, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, during his 1988 visit to PRC, acknowledged Tibet as being an autonomous region of PRC. At least ABV restricted himself to Tibetan Autonomous Region which has only one-third of the Tibetan population within itself. Not that, this is any consolation for the return recognition by China of India trade through Sikkim, but a subtle distinction was made. In any case, all these show the muddled thinking on the part of India.

Later reactions from China cast doubts about the Chinese implicit recognition of Sikkim as part of India. Nation states do change their positions in their best interests and in light of developing situations. Today, the trade deficit of USD 20 Billion is in favour of PRC which give us a leverage. In 1986, we demonstrated our resolve in Sumdorong Chu. We have to show similar resolve.

What is the point in SM Krishna visiting PRC to canvass for UNSC seat if we are unable to stop the PRC from issung stapled visas for Indian citizens ?

[SSridhar]

SM Krishna to discuss UNSC seat issue with PRC

India expects China to make a gesture during the ongoing celebration of the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relationship by supporting New Delhi's case for a seat in the United Nations Security Council.

This issue is expected to be discussed prominently during meetings between external affairs minister SM Krishna and Chinese leaders this week.

But there is little expectation from the Chinese side for correcting the trade imbalance caused by low buying from China. The trade deficit will also come in the way of any attempt by Chinese leaders to persuade India to sign a regional trade agreement, sources said.

"It they do not do something about the UN Security Council seat in this year of celebrations, they may not do it later. We are not going to beg for Chinese support. It is for China to recognize India's place in the world and extend support," a foreign ministry source told TNN.

India is also looking forward to a clear statement from China that is not interested in getting involved with infrastructure development in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. There have been reports that some Chinese construction companies are eagerly looking at business opportunities in the disputed area.

The vexed issue of visa including New Delhi's dissatisfaction over China's treatment of Indian Kashmiris is bound to figure at the discussions.

[Hari Seldon]

^^ If Sri SM Krishna garu can convince cheena to suport unsc seat thingie in public, then I for one would gladly change our Hon MEA mantriji's fair name to AVSM PVSM Krishna only.

[Kavu]

Kavu, you answered your own question.

But is it really only about balls ? or is it more about long term planning? Our Leadership has been severly found wanting in 48 and 62. Does it make sense for us to lay low for 10-15 years while we earn SC Seat, Nuclear recognition, a far better economy, logistics, military. Question is are we buying time? It is easy for India to de-recognize Tibet and create a Paper visa situation like China, and can be justified in the Indian context as well as the world.

[A_Gupta]

China has no Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and now no Google, as per Christiane Amanpour's program on CNN.

I'm trying to imagine a nation that feels threatened by these. I find it hard to take China seriously if this claim is true.

[RamaY]

Kavu, you answered your own question.

But is it really only about balls ? or is it more about long term planning? Our Leadership has been severly found wanting in 48 and 62. Does it make sense for us to lay low for 10-15 years while we earn SC Seat, Nuclear recognition, a far better economy, logistics, military. Question is are we buying time? It is easy for India to de-recognize Tibet and create a Paper visa situation like China, and can be justified in the Indian context as well as the world.

The $M question is

- What will PRC do in next 10-15 years?
- What will current P5 do in next 10-15 years?

and How will India get all these goodies, SC seat, Nuklear Reorg and what is FAR BETTER economy? How do we go there from here in 15 years?

[Kavu]

The $M question is

- What will PRC do in next 10-15 years?
- What will current P5 do in next 10-15 years?

and How will India get all these goodies, SC seat, Nuklear Reorg and what is FAR BETTER economy? How do we go there from here in 15 years?

Is there a sense of sarcasm and snarkyiness in your post?

I am assuming the current Indian leadership, on the back of our economic resurgence and fall of Soviet Union in the 90's, as well as learning (hopefully) from the history what Pakistan and China has been to India from 1947, would have laid out a plan geopolitical, military and economic. IF there is really a plan of that sort, then I am sure the pro's over here, would be able to see a positive change from 2000 (about time we were sure about our economic rise) onwards, in comparison to the last 4 decades. For example, are we more assertive with Pakistan after 2000 or before 2000?

I believe we have toned down to China from what has been in the 70's and 80's, I am sure parity and China's rise has something to do with it.
I will be honest, from my very limited capability, I believe conventionally we are far behind China in terms economics(money,reserves), logistics, geopolitical realities, Planning, Oil Reserves, as well as sheer will.

Assuming China is growing as currently as they are, and India is also growing, what amount of money, equipment, recognition, etc, for us to really stand up to China! I am sure India has a time line set? Or else why all this buying of time? So what is it 10, 15, 20, 25 ? What are the benchmarks we have to achieve by then?

[Kavu]

So no thoughts, So there is no chankiyan move to buy time by the GoI in order to achieve benchmarks(minimum political, economic, military and geopolitical deterrence against Chinese), Do we have to consider the two new Mountain Divisions raised after lifitng the 37 year old ban on Chinese centric forces as adhoc or part of a larger plan? Can we list out projects which would make us achieve these said benchmarks?, Major changes in military capability, What is the miminmum number of squadrons needed for a two front war? is 45 enough(which we dont have) should it be 60, 70 or 100. How does the Chinese Orbat along with Pakistani Orbat look from our prespective? Can we check mate Pakistan, by strengthening Iran and Afghanistan? How does that work for our US and Israeli counterparts? Why are we not engaging South Korea and Vietnam as we should?

Gentleman, I am aware I am rambling on and incoherent that is because I am confused myself, but I am sure that there must be a plan, we must have learnt something from our past mistakes. We cant be a bunch of complete incomptenet fools, leading a nice rolly polly innocent giant that is our nation! That just cant be.

[Klaus]

India, China to work together to ban Pak terrorists.

Few things to note as follows:

Azam Cheema, said to be the Lashkar-e-Toiba intelligence chief, is an accused in the Mumbai serial train blasts of 2007, while Masood Azhar, founder of the Jaish-e-Mohammed, was one of three handed back to the hijackers of the IC-814 aircraft in December 2001 in Kandahar, soon after which he escaped into Pakistan. Both Cheema and Azhar are said to be based in Bahawalpur, Pakistan.

Shouldnt the bolded part be 2006?

Krishna, who will call on Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, is likely to seek assurance on this count, as well as on the subject of the stapled visas for Indians hailing from Jammu & Kashmir. Officials briefing the press on Saturday said, unlike the disputed nature of the Line of Actual Control around which parts of Arunachal Pradesh could be contested, the matter of giving different visas to residents from Jammu & Kashmir “hit at the core of territorial integrity and sovereignty” of India.

I would like to see in which tone these officials made the above statement, it kind of tilts toward GUBO-ment here.

“The Chinese have promised to address Indian concerns, especially in removing non-tariff barriers against Indian interests, especially in information technology and IT-enabled services, in pharmaceuticals, basmati rice, Indian movies and music, which are extremely popular in China,” the sources said.

They said the official dialogue between the two sides was “so absolutely free and frank that it would surprise anybody,” and both officialdoms often discussed “even the most sensitive subjects very openly”.

Isnt this kind of anticlimatic considering that India refused to recognize China as a 'market economy' some time ago? Wouldnt the Chinese press for the same after/while addressing Indian concerns?

Analysts pointed out that China was one country which understood and respected the nature of power, that the Indo-US nuclear deal had propelled Delhi into a new international league and, even more significantly, that India had continued to grow at a dynamic 6.9 per cent (China grew by around 8.7 per cent) over the last two years when the rest of the world was in significant recession.

“The Chinese certainly sat up and took notice of the Indo-US nuclear deal, but what has impressed them even more was India’s ability to grow at a sustained pace, without much FDI and high technology transfers. Moreover, in an increasingly multi-polar world, just as at the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Beijing realised that they must coordinate strategies in counter-terrorism, multi-polarity and energy security,” said Srikant Kondapalli, professor of Chinese studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

IMO the one thing which really made them sit up and take notice was the successful A-3 test followed by the A-5 announcement.

[Kavu]

I would like to see in which tone these officials made the above statement, it kind of tilts toward GUBO-ment here.

The same can be said of Xinjiang as well as Tibet, but we dont issue them visas on paper? Why?

Isnt this kind of anticlimatic considering that India refused to recognize China as a 'market economy' some time ago? Wouldnt the Chinese press for the same after/while addressing Indian concerns?

That is more recent, and might be an Indian response to what you quoted.

IMO the one thing which really made them sit up and take notice was the successful A-3 test followed by the A-5 announcement.

India's capability of Nuclear Delivery was never in doubt to them, even without A-3. The fact is, they are piling on the pressure on us, is it because they are scared of our rise, is it because they think we are weak enough to do whatever they please? What does Sun Tzu say?

[Klaus]

I would like to see in which tone these officials made the above statement, it kind of tilts toward GUBO-ment here.

The same can be said of Xinjiang as well as Tibet, but we dont issue them visas on paper? Why?

It was like they were saying: "We can live with the fact that China keeps encroaching on Tawang and Arunachal and keeps calling it Southern Tibet and whatnot and it does not affect India as it is nearly not as == as issuing separate stapled visas for Indians in J&K." IOW, the "hit at the core of territorial integrity and sovereignty" really hurts the officials only with regard to the visa issue whereas the Arunachal territory dispute is passe (probably because they've developed thick skin towards the same).

I mean, if you really want to do an '==', do it in the right way. Why do it with apples and oranges? Somebody in the Chinese establishment is going to call their bluff and they will end up GUBO-ing to save their H&D back home. Bumbling fools!

[Kavu]

It was like they were saying: "We can live with the fact that China keeps encroaching on Tawang and Arunachal and keeps calling it Southern Tibet and whatnot and it does not affect India as it is nearly not as == as issuing separate stapled visas for Indians in J&K." IOW, the "hit at the core of territorial integrity and sovereignty" really hurts the officials only with regard to the visa issue whereas the Arunachal territory dispute is passe (probably because they've developed thick skin towards the same).

I will be very honest, We have been as a nation, pretty nasty on the Northern Easterns both societially and Government wise. While we have pampered and appeased the traitors in the valley. I am disgusted with that, if I hear on more person saying 'chinki' I will explode.

I mean, if you really want to do an '==', do it in the right way. Why do it with apples and oranges? Somebody in the Chinese establishment is going to call their bluff and they will end up GUBO-ing to save their H&D back home. Bumbling fools!

See, I accept V.K.Kirshna Menon and Co were a set of bumbling fools, but are we to believe we learnt nothing of it, our Diplomats dont know anything but BR does? Just because there wasnt any long term planning pre-economic resurgence doesnt mean there isnt any long term planning now? If there is a plan now, maybe we are buying time, will the death of Dalai Lama (god forbid) before our achieving of benchmarks limit our options for us? I still think we are being Chankiyan now though not before.

[hulaku]

Officials briefing the press on Saturday said, unlike the disputed nature of the Line of Actual Control around which parts of Arunachal Pradesh could be contested, the matter of giving different visas to residents from Jammu & Kashmir “hit at the core of territorial integrity and sovereignty” of India.

As posted before by me, the Chinese are not issuing visas to Indian citizens born in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Instead of giving visas on paper they have stopped issuing these visas altogether.

I say this out of personal experience.

I wonder if the Indian Government has noticed this?

[Klaus]

I will be very honest, We have been as a nation, pretty nasty on the Northern Easterns both societially and Government wise. While we have pampered and appeased the traitors in the valley. I am disgusted with that, if I hear on more person saying 'chinki' I will explode.

Nobody is name-calling here. You always have the 'Report Post' option. Apart from that, why the takleef? I was lashing out at the hopeless '==' attempt made in Beijing in the report, nothing else.

See, I accept V.K.Kirshna Menon and Co were a set of bumbling fools, but are we to believe we learnt nothing of it, our Diplomats dont know anything but BR does? Just because there wasnt any long term planning pre-economic resurgence doesnt mean there isnt any long term planning now? If there is a plan now, maybe we are buying time, will the death of Dalai Lama (god forbid) before our achieving of benchmarks limit our options for us? I still think we are being Chankiyan now though not before.

I do not think we are on the same page here. I am all for planning side-by-side with economic resurgence. However, I cannot think of any suitable reason why we would want to buy time (if anybody has to buy time, its the Chinese and not India, that might well be the reason for this trip although India has its longpending concerns). The news report talks about assertive dialogue from both sides and though Kondapalli is giving his opinion (Btw I have an instinctive dislike for anything jholawala, just like most BRFites), I would say the report is pretty unbiased though factually incorrect on a few counts.