Bharat Rakshak

BEIJING: India foiled an "ambush China" strategy of western nations including the United States at the climate change talks in Copenhagen last December. This is why Chinese leaders now regard India as a crucial partner in the global arena, Jairam Ramesh, minister of state for environment said here on Sunday.

"At the Copenhagen talks Chinese in their heart of hearts know we saved them from isolation," he said addressing the foreign correspondents' club of China. The developed countries were trying to get China, the world’s worst emitter of green house gas, to sign on "some international agreement to give legal status" until India made this impossible.

What has emerged as a "Copenhagen spirit" of friendship between India and China that has high strategic significance far beyond the issue of climate change, he said. On the other hand, the US is very uneasy with the new spirit of "bonhomie between India and China," he said.

Steinberg has been giving major speeches on U.S.-China relations. He gave a speech on U.S.-China cooperation on May 11 at the Brookings Institution, and previewed the dialogue on May 19 at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In those remarks, he reiterated his concept for how to manage U.S.-China relations, called "strategic reassurance" -- the idea that the United States and its allies won't oppose China's rise so long as Beijing can "reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of security and well-being of others," ...

...

The Obama White House has not picked up on the idea of "strategic reassurance," a term that was always Steinberg's alone and was never adopted by others in the administration, at least not publicly.

Sanjay M wrote:South Korea, U.S. Turn to China for Help Punishing North Korea

Funny how the US will seek to push China on North Korea's military adventurism against South Korea, but it couldn't care less about lobby China over Pakistan's military adventurism against India.

The commander of US forces in the Pacific has warned that China’s military is asserting the country’s territorial claims in regional waters more aggressively.“There has been an assertiveness that has been growing over time, particularly in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea,” Admiral Robert Willard told the Financial Times. He said China’s extensive claims to islands and waters in the region were “generating increasing concern broadly across the region and require address”.
China and US seek to strike conciliatory note - May-24.US to press China on business - May-20.China to hit US chicken with new tariffs - Apr-28.Timeline: China-US trade spats - May-18.Insight: Other states can fill gap between US and China - Apr-27.Opinion: China revaluation will not cure imbalance - Apr-11..The admiral’s remarks come after complaints by Japan’s government about aggressive behaviour from a Chinese coastguard vessel in contested waters and a Chinese military helicopter in international waters.Some of China’s neighbours have been watching the People’s Liberation Army’s modernisation and efforts at expanding the PLA navy’s reach with unease. Defence experts see this expansion as one factor behind a developing arms race in south-east Asia.Admiral Willard said the US viewed China’s growing influence in Asia as positive. But Beijing needed to be more transparent, not only with the US but also with its neighbours, about the part of the PLA’s capabilities that could be viewed as aggressive.He was speaking before talks with Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of general staff of the PLA, the first meeting between senior US and Chinese military officers since Beijing suspended bilateral military-to-military dialogue in January over US arms sales to Taiwan.“US-China military dialogue is officially still in suspension,” said Admiral Willard, who visited Beijing at the invitation of Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, in the context of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, a series of high-level bilateral exchanges that concluded on Tuesday.But he interpreted the fact that Beijing had agreed to his presence as a sign that it viewed some high-level exchanges as beneficial.“What was very striking yesterday was my impression of the very advanced, sophisticated and mature dialogue that’s occurring across a wide range of subjects between China and the US,” he said. “That is in contrast with a very immature military to military relationship that we see great value in improving, and we hope that that would become evident to China as well.”The admiral said he had not been a party to discussions with China about North Korea, which had been led by Mrs Clinton. Military observers in Beijing said they believed the issue had been on the agenda on his meeting with Gen Ma.Admiral Willard said: “China has a role in this as a direct result of the relationship that they maintain with the North Koreans. At the same time, the broader international community has a role to play in this, and we think the UN ultimately has a role to play in this in support of the aggrieved party, South Korea.”
.

Politically, China is an irredentist power that arguably has done more to advance global nuclear proliferation than any other state save Pakistan, while routinely doing business with some of the world's worst governments. Apart from the issues of Taiwan and the Spratly Islands, China lays claim to much of India's state of Arunachal Pradesh, and caused major jitters in 2009 with incursions into the territory combined with strident rhetoric. It has blocked Asian Development Bank projects approved for India over the issue. It helped Pakistan develop its nuclear arsenal and ballistic missile technology. Currently, the largest recipients of Chinese military aid are India's neighbors, including Burma, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka in addition to Pakistan; India fears that China is engaged in a concerted campaign to undermine and contain it. In addition, China is rapidly developing its "string of pearls" strategy in the Indian Ocean, investing significant resources to develop deep water ports in the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Seychelles. These appear to be a basis for the projection of a powerful naval presence into what India considers its backyard.

"We will encourage China to make choices that contribute to peace, security, and prosperity as its influence rises," the strategy says, while also making sure to note that the U.S. administration seeks a "candid" and "pragmatic" relationship with China that also takes into account its military modernization.

...

But the Chinese response to evidence that North Korea sank a South Korean naval ship, the Cheonan, is giving China watchers in Washington pause. ...

South Korea, U.S. Turn to China for Help Punishing North Korea

Funny how the US will seek to push China on North Korea's military adventurism against South Korea, but it couldn't care less about lobby China over Pakistan's military adventurism against India.

Actually US should turn to India to control Pakistan and many problems of the world would get solved. US instead protects and encourages Pakistan.

Dai Xu has alleged in his article that during the Cold War, the US objective was to 'contain China hard', for the purpose of 'strangulating the Soviet Union softly'. After the Cold War, its strategy was reversed -- containing Russia [ Images ] hard for the purpose of 'strangulating China softly'.

Touching on what he calls the 'US dollar trap', Dai Xu takes what Professor Zhang Wuchang, of the Beijing University of Finance said several years back as basis, to disclose that in China, the US controls 21industries out of a total of 28, after 'hollowing out' China economically, at a time when the country's focus for years remained on achieving GDP growth through trade.

VinodTK wrote:US accused of strategically encircling China

The American humour is that the US should sell 'toxic debt' to China in return for the Chinese sale of 'toxic toys' to them.

Reflecting the changed dynamic in ties between China and the U.S., and China's growing confidence regarding its presence in the region, strategic analysts in Beijing this week played down the significance of the dialogue in Washington, in a departure from the more anxious tones routinely struck last year.

Hu Shisheng, a South Asia scholar at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, described the talks as “more ceremonial than effective”.

“The U.S. has already held many such dialogues with China and Pakistan, and now India needs to verify its importance to the U.S. through the same channel,” he told the China Daily. “The U.S. may hope to get from India what it failed to get from China, and through a strengthened cooperation with another Asian giant, pressure China on many issues.”

The Great Hall, on the western edge of Tiananmen Square, is China's political hub. It functions as the headquarters of the National People's Congress as well as the parliament of the People's Republic of China.
"Our President specifically raised the (SC) point. China said it understands and supports India's aspiration for greater role in the UN, particularly the SC. And it has sought India's cooperation for reforming and expanding the SC," Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said in a briefing.
Expansion of SC means room for India as a permanent member, something New Delhi has been pursuing for years. The shot at the non-permanent seat for 2011-12 has given New Delhi a reason to up the ante.
"Our assessment is that the Chinese leadership was not guarded or diplomatic in supporting India's UN aspiration. They said they were listening very carefully to what we say, and that there was a legitimacy in our bid for permanent seat in the SC," Rao said.

Zhang Guihong of Shanghai's Fudan University wrote in the ruling Communist Party's official Global Times newspaper that India's influence in its neighbourhood was limited, as a result of foreign policy that prioritised relations with more far-away countries.

“India pays attention to distant relatives such as the U.S. and Russia and expects to raise its own value by becoming a counterweight to China, but it is at odds with neighbours such as Pakistan and Myanmar,” said Mr. Zhang.

“This diplomacy means it can only make a very limited contribution to regional issues.”

Reflecting the changed dynamic in ties between China and the U.S., and China's growing confidence regarding its presence in the region, strategic analysts in Beijing this week played down the significance of the dialogue in Washington, in a departure from the more anxious tones routinely struck last year.

Hu Shisheng, a South Asia scholar at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, described the talks as “more ceremonial than effective”.

“The U.S. has already held many such dialogues with China and Pakistan, and now India needs to verify its importance to the U.S. through the same channel,” he told the China Daily. “The U.S. may hope to get from India what it failed to get from China, and through a strengthened cooperation with another Asian giant, pressure China on many issues.”

bart wrote:

Reflecting the changed dynamic in ties between China and the U.S., and China's growing confidence regarding its presence in the region, strategic analysts in Beijing this week played down the significance of the dialogue in Washington, in a departure from the more anxious tones routinely struck last year.

Hu Shisheng, a South Asia scholar at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, described the talks as “more ceremonial than effective”.

“The U.S. has already held many such dialogues with China and Pakistan, and now India needs to verify its importance to the U.S. through the same channel,” he told the China Daily. “The U.S. may hope to get from India what it failed to get from China, and through a strengthened cooperation with another Asian giant, pressure China on many issues.”

That is hardly extraordinary hubris, he is in fact calling a spade a spade. If only our breathless media and elites would realize the same.

bart wrote:
That is hardly extraordinary hubris, he is in fact calling a spade a spade. If only our breathless media and elites would realize the same.



I agree. Its indeed is exactly at the heart of the true matter. I generally dont give much weight to Chinese ramblings, but that one has quite some truth to it.

India, China can't afford distortions of policy: NSA
Warning that India [ Images ] and China could ill-afford misperceptions on policy, National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon on Thursday said that pursuit of an ambitious agenda by the two countries could put bilateral relations on a sound footing."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.Menon asserted that in a democracy like India, foreign policy has a symbiotic relationship with public opinion, which is formed by it and needs its support to be legitimate, coherent and implementable.

On May 24 in a vast meeting room inside the grounds of the state guesthouse at Diaoyutai in Beijing, Rear Adm. Guan Youfei of the People's Liberation Army rose to speak

Everything, Guan said, that is going right in U.S. relations with China is because of China. Everything, he continued, that is going wrong is the fault of the United States. ( paki logic adopted by PRC)Guan accused the United States of being a "hegemon" and of plotting to encircle China with strategic alliances. The official saved the bulk of his bile for U.S. arms sales to China's nemesis, Taiwan -- Guan said these prove that the United States views China as an enemy.

And last week in Singapore, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sought to portray not just Guan, but the whole of the People's Liberation Army, as an outlier intent on blocking better ties with Washington while the rest of China's government moves ahead.


On the plane back to the United States, for example, U.S. officials predicted that despite Guan's outburst, China would welcome Gates and that it would also begin to side with South Korea against North Korea following the release of a report in Seoul implicating the regime of Kim Jong Il in the deadly sinking of a South Korean warship on March 26. China did neither, and interviews with PLA officers indicate that the military is highly suspicious of the South Korean report.


Chinese analysts say the Obama administration ignores what China calls its "core national interests" -- especially U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan -- at its peril.

"For years, China has opposed arms sales to Taiwan among other things, but we were never strong enough to do anything about it," said Cui Liru, the president of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a think tank run by the Ministry of State Security. "But our national strength has grown. And it is time that the United States pay attention."

"This is not just a talking point that can be dismissed by your government," he continued. "It is something that must be dealt with or it will seriously damage ties."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates departed for Asia on Wednesday but had to drop a big country from his itinerary after China, still smarting over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, gave him the cold shoulder.

Gates had been hoping for months to visit Beijing this summer, a destination that took on added importance at the Pentagon after North Korea -- which sees China as its closest ally and diplomatic protector -- was accused last month of sinking a South Korean warship with a torpedo, killing 46 sailors.

But Beijing declined to extend an invitation. Pentagon officials said no specific reason was given. But they said they assumed China was still annoyed by the Obama administration's announcement in January that it would approve $6.4 billion in arms sales to Taiwan.

abhischekcc wrote:In an article many years ago, Vir Sanghvi had recalled that PVN Rao had talked to him in 1991 about his anticipations about the growing conflict between US and China. He added that Rao said India should side with China in this conflict.

Just FYI.

abhischekcc wrote:In an article many years ago, Vir Sanghvi had recalled that PVN Rao had talked to him in 1991 about his anticipations about the growing conflict between US and China. He added that Rao said India should side with China in this conflict.

Just FYI.

prad wrote: but the past didn't have China as a dominant East Asian power; the past also didn't have an industrialized Japan; the past also didn't have a huge muslim population which views relgious and cultural homogeneity as a necessity in SE Asia.

prad wrote:

naren wrote:^^^ Civilizational-psyche wise, its in India's best interests to align with China. The problems we have today is political and temporal in nature. Once the CPC tones down or may be replaced, it will go away. The Abrahamic/European societies are far more ruthless in their "pursuit of happiness".

if Asia was the only continent on the planet, if the 'evil' west didn't exist, all this would be possible. if you start viewing the globe as merely Asia, this is the kind of conclusions you arrive at. but the world is greater than just Asia. and as such, the existence of large Muslim populations in SE-Asia, natural/historic rivalry between China, Japan, and Korea also prevent the East Asians from becoming an idealized chini-japani-korean bhai-bhai.

in the age of maritime powers, conflict in Asia, even independent of the West, is not hard to imagine. interests of nations are bound to collide as industrialism and naval power spread to Asia from the West. in the past, when Indian naval influence extended to SE Asia, China was not a naval power. China was a naval power periodically, but eventually it would withdraw due to its internal politics.

and when India was able to influence SE Asia, Japan was still in its feudal stage. the problem with many Indians thinking that if not for the West, India would be Super Power, is that the past is linearly extrapolated. but the past didn't have China as a dominant East Asian power; the past also didn't have an industrialized Japan; the past also didn't have a huge muslim population which views relgious and cultural homogeneity as a necessity in SE Asia.

naren wrote:
Abrahamic societies have no concept of Karma or Reincarnation. You have only one shot at life. After that, eternal hell or eternal heaven. So you gotta make the maximum out of this life. This belief drives people into desperation & unbridled enjoymentism. You can see that in the way these societies attempt to conquer others. They can easily pull off a genocide, enslave the people & write it gloriously in their history.

Then there's the new "secular" way of looking at life in the West - that life is just an accident. This view doesnt make matters any better either.

For Dharmic societies, there is a natural toning down of desires. You are responsible for the crimes you commit. There's no ever loving, ever merciful God who will forgive all your sins and give a free pass for eternity in Heaven. You have infinite shots at life. Without giving up your desires, there's no way of escaping. Its not in the Indian psyche to commit genocide, slavery, mass rape & write about it gloriously, the way Abrahamic societies do.