Managing Chinese Threat

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2010 14:55

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LH13Df02.html

Sri Lanka has taken care not to allow its dalliance with the Chinese to offend India. It has repeatedly clarified that it will keep India's security concerns in mind.

With the end of the war in Sri Lanka last year, India's role in the island has diminished. All the same, the government recognizes it cannot afford to antagonize India, and geographical proximity to India is a factor that Colombo cannot ignore. Decision-makers in Colombo are unlikely to have forgotten past experiences.

In the 1980s, when the civil war was unfolding, the Sri Lankan government sourced weapons from countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan and China - all with whom India was not on cordial terms at that time - ignoring India's security concerns. That sparked a series of moves by India that culminated in its provision of limited arms and training to the Tamil militants. Then in June 1987, when India violated Sri Lankan airspace and dropped relief supplies to Jaffna's beleaguered Tamil population, the J R Jayawardene government appealed to its Western friends and Asian allies for assistance. But little concrete help was forthcoming.

China, for instance, expressed strong disapproval of the "bullying action of big powers", but stopped short of naming India. It gave Colombo some arms, but that was it. China was aware that "it was too far away from Sri Lanka to sustain any military support operation on the island", Kondapalli said. Beijing advised the Sri Lankan government to pursue a political solution to the ethnic conflict, reminding Colombo that "distant waters don't put out fires on your doorstep", Gooneratne, then in the Sri Lankan diplomatic service, recalled. It was proximate countries that were in a position to do so.

This is a fact that Colombo will bear in mind as it does a careful balancing act between the two Asian giants.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2010 14:57

or even Prostitutistan would have .......

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2010 15:17

Whether or not US benefits by a Indo-China spat, and whether we need to worry about a spat with China are too different questions.

Even if there was no US in the world the issues being discussed would hold.

US is a additional 'factor' no doubt -- and it is indeed sad that we worry about the Chinese only when the US media says so. We should have worried about Chinese in general.

With US we have to worry about China and its additional complicity with US as the worst case.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Sep 2010 15:21

- self-deleted -

response to shiv's post deleted due to overly vulgar analogies.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2010 15:32

World Oil consumption by country:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_o ... onsumption

World iron ore imports by country
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_w ... ncentrates

World Iron ore production by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore

China produces on a small part of its oil and iron ore requirements. A naval blockade or even a threat that increases the insurance and risks will put a brake on Chinese imports.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2010 15:46

Sanku wrote:Whether or not US benefits by a Indo-China spat, and whether we need to worry about a spat with China are too different questions.

Even if there was no US in the world the issues being discussed would hold.

How? With No US there would be no Taiwan problem for China. Also No Trillion USD in China. No industrial growth, economy and oil demand that makes China big enough for Indian dhoti shivering.

It is India that is the pipsqueak whose absence would be felt far less than US or China.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Sep 2010 15:54

shiv wrote:
China produces on a small part of its oil and iron ore requirements. A naval blockade or even a threat that increases the insurance and risks will put a brake on Chinese imports.

That is all the more reason why the PRC will try to get out of the stratejacket. They can also achieve by making peace with India but they will not do so.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Sep 2010 16:01

sanku ji, the 'variety of open source information' says nothing about what force PLAN can spare for IOR.

even after the rapid and widely noted expansion of PLAN in 90's and 2000's, this is PLAN's current modern surface fleet that can be theoretically deployed against India. of course doing that will make the PRC homeland naked and for all practical purposes they won't be able to spare more than 20% (at considerable stretch, considering the commitments against USN, RoCN, JMSDF, ROKN and VPN at its doorstep) of that fleet for IOR.

destroyers
2+2 sovremenny + imprv ....... 4 ships (roughly equivalent to delhi class with less ASW capability)
051B luhai .......................... 1 ship (design considered inadequate with no follow up construction. very weak AD capability)
051C luzhou ....................... 2 ships (AAW destroyer with strong SAM component but outdated superstructure and propulsion for its time)
052 luhu ............................ 2 ships (roughly equivalent to brahmaputra class)
052B ................................ 2 ships (PLAN's first stealthy multi-role destroyers, roughly equivalent to IN's talwar class frigate)
052C ................................ 2 ships (stealthy AAW destroyer, strong SAM component)

that's 13 in all. do note that many of PLAN's destroyers would be dubbed as frigates in IN service.
now let's have a look at the frigates, bearing in mind that most would be unfit for service outside of PRC's territorial waters. the ones that can operate in the high seas are

054 class ........................ 2 ships (roughly equivalent to brahmaputra class but with less punch in both ASW and anti-surface role)
054A class ...................... 8 ships (roughly equivalent to talwar class frigate)

10 in all

so that's 23 modern ocean capable assets in all with another 3-4 in construction. kindly bear in mind that only a small portion of this can be deployed against IN. we should also consider the requirement of support vessels for any such deployment.

IN itself can bring 5 kashin + 3 brahmaputra + 3 godavari + 3 delhi + 3 talwar + 1 shivalik (18 in all) to the table. in addition we have under construction 3 talwars, 2 shivaliks, 3 kolkata and 4 P28.
another 3 stealth destroyers and 7 stealth frigates are in advanced planning. moreover, since any such conflict will take place in our backyard we can easily commit the pocket destroyers, the kora and khukri class corvettes (4 each) which pack as much punch as a destroyer minus the range and SAM cover. then of course there is the prospect of land based missiles and aircrafts.

I'll touch on submarines in a subsequent post.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Sep 2010 16:23

China and the US are engaged in Co-opetition
that is to say cooperation AND competition
this war is fought economically
but requires a very robust military to back it up
China will engage in this model with the EU (notice shivering in lederhosen already)
and with India
(dhotis blowing away at Mach 2 due to hypershivering)
the war will also be fought by proxy
in Pakistan and Afghanistan
in Central Asia
and in Africa and the Mid East

it will not become a hot war in any of the homelands or rich near abroads
we need to think in terms of chess moves across the IOR (our backyard)
and the CAR/Afghania - also our backyard but one that butts onto China's
in the meantime, we need big chunks of iron like them and unkil
to actually create an ugly stability whereupon no one will risk the costs of a direct war

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2010 16:40

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote:Whether or not US benefits by a Indo-China spat, and whether we need to worry about a spat with China are too different questions.

Even if there was no US in the world the issues being discussed would hold.
How? With No US there would be no Taiwan problem for China. Also No Trillion USD in China. No industrial growth, economy and oil demand that makes China big enough for Indian dhoti shivering.

It is India that is the pipsqueak whose absence would be felt far less than US or China.

Well not literally no US, because that would mean setting the clock back to 1600 before America's were colonized. That certainly bears no discussion.

When I say "no US" I mean even if US had a neutral status quoist position (we dont care who does what as long as our minimum is not impacted, dont finger our allies, dont finger our economy)

I am not even sure if US would benefit if India and China had a hot spat, most probably given its overwhelming dependence on China today, it will hurt if we hurt China, similarly hurt to US will also hurt US (to a lesser extent).

US would benefit far more if India continued to play a subservient role where a G-2 and artificially fixed currencies practically imposed a resource extraction on all world trade.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2010 16:43

Rahul M wrote: so that's 23 modern ocean capable assets in all with another 3-4 in construction.

Rahul M, there is no debate on where the Chinese are now. The contention is with the above bolded number.

What are the projections over next 20 years is the real question, particularly in light of their stated and expected massive number growths.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 21 Sep 2010 16:43

you are on dot Lalmohan ji ,India is never geared up to hot war, our strategy is being defensive offensive.

We lodge strong protest , keep an eye on developments, closely monitor situation, move some Maj Gen from Delhi to front.. ityadi
but not shot fired in anger...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Sep 2010 17:06

well my point being, neither side (all three players) wants a hot war with each other
but proxies can be shot to pieces at will

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Sep 2010 18:10

Can the Chinese moves into NA to counter the likely presence of USA in Northern Afganistan?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Sep 2010 18:31

check the elevations of gilgit and n. afghanistan
maybe dragon is just preparing more sigint capability to snoop on unkil?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2010 19:53

ramana wrote:Kanson Thats is why I asked Rajaram whther China was a puzzle or a mystery? In a puzzle all the pieces are there and its a matter of fitting them together to get the picture. In a mystery we need to find the pieces.

So what is the conclusion? Puzzle or mystery?

AFAIK, it is the puzzle. Atleast Defense made that to be puzzle. And even MEA approach is likely to that of puzzle only. There is no mystery here. If i like to elaborate on the S.S. Menon's assertion, it may turn out as threat or mere nuisance depending upon the relative strength of India Vs China individually as well as their relative strength in the country in which China sort to have military/Naval base. Thats why India's approach to those countries is towards increasing India's strength. Srilanka can be quoted as an example of such action.

As its pans out...as China is still an ascending power, the true ramification of these string of pearls strategy will heard as time progress. It could be few years, to sever years or decades. One thing i must point out is the true brilliance of moving the Theater of War from Pacific/SouthChina sea to Indian Ocean, if war erupts between two giants. If an analogy can be shown, it is similar to moving the area of conflict in India portion of what is called South Tibet rather than the Tibet where the initial disagreement began between the two giants. This strategy also prevents India ganging up with other East/SE Asian countries in attacking at its south belly as this divert Indian attention to its String of Pearls. But all this needs military muscle....and no one is doubting its buildup of that. Question rather is when? It needs true military mind to piece together all the puzzle to project a bigger picture.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2010 20:26

Kanson, To borrow the cliche its "puzzle wrapped in a mystery or enigma". The puzzle pieces can be evaluated with more diligence in unearthing the peices. The mystery is PRC is on crux/threshold of change we don't know which way it will develop. Its the mystery part that flummoxes us.

PRC knows India will not pose a military threat to it. At best get the better in local engagements.

The challenge of India for China is of the mind. And this one is for the log haul. China has not figured out if India is changed/modernised or not. Since it doesn't know its using the tools that it knows and has advantages to build new fences.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Sep 2010 21:00

The challenge of India for China is of the mind. And this one is for the log haul.

Chiskology to the rescue, perhaps?

Anyways, there will soon be a time to get aggressive and uppity with cheena. 2012, perhaps?

Cheena's aggressive postures also put it at a distinct disadvantage - downhill climbdowns are seen as face-losing. And to win, cheena will have to win comprehensively but to win, India only has to not lose (territory, eqpmt and people). And even if we get a bloody nose or 2 here and there, big deal, we're SDREs only, what is to be expected of us anyway?

Time will tell where this is going.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Sep 2010 21:21

any chinese attack on india will be perceived in a pro-india light by the rest of the world, which is not what the dragon wants either...

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Sep 2010 21:34

^ well, that did not stop 1962

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Sep 2010 21:36

1962 was a whole different ball game

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2010 21:41

Two articles from Heritage Foundation

Dean Cheng

[url=http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/wm3007.pdf]China's View of South Asia and Indian Ocean[/url]

Dean Cheng and Lisa Curtis:

China's Indian provocations part of broader trends

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 21 Sep 2010 21:52

What is happening to china,

1) economy is growing
2) growing internal unrest and disturbances
3) increasing expenditure on maintaining calm inside china.( much more than PLA spending)
4) More urge towards spending money anywhere- where ever there is some natural resources to be extracted.
5) Why should china antagonise India, US SoKo Japan Vietnam etc. despite IOR region is patrolled by US. India can make significant damage to chinese economy if things get messier by creating havoc in the sea lanes. SoKo Japan and Vietnam are no pushovers. They are strong.
6) Why is china building gwadar and in hambantota sittwe despite not sure of returns.
7) It is burning money in Africa and again not sure of its returns. also pissing of some powers in europe and US again.
8 ) It has settled border issues with all countries except India.
9) It is now claiming south china sea, paracel, spratyl islands and few others.
10) china does have money power and support nations with its veto power. Its soft power is weak. IOW once it falls or at least appears weak its power disappears. Hence the bravado.

The strings of pearls are of unknown quantity at present.
1) Gwadar- no guaranteed success. Baluchis troubles are far from over. Internal strife in TSP is evident. TSPA trying hard to maintain semblance of normalcy. The road route is long traversing the length of TSP. TSPians may themselves may blow the oilpipes and roads (soosai bummers variation instead of killing fellow TSPians). Only TSPA is enamoured of china and not the mango TSPian. Overall TSP is a nut case, the more nuttier it is the more unstable it becomes, more anti India more unstable.(this despite china and US trying to avert it)
2) Hambantota- SL is a free and independent country. China can build ports for civilians purposes..As long SL is free with no internal strife it will not like to antagonise India. Having PLA navy is a far fetched thought. India did not agree as it would rival other ports. Remember GOI was trying to have ports around kerala and TN (with sethusamudram issue, also LTTE etc.) It wanted to bypass SL and enter Indian eastern coast without going around SL. Hence India was luke warm to it. Chinese grabbed it despite uncertainity about its returns. This will compete with gwadar. It is also expensive as it will be sea route compared to gwadar to china –a land route.
3) Sittwe- close to India borders. China has sunk over $ 2 billions in Burma. Burmese junta support chinese endeavors. However the border of china and Burma are hilly with jungles. There are burmese rebels who are battling the junta. Some of them are of chinese ethnicity. China has refugees in towns bordering Burma.It is difficult to support them or antagonise them. China has asked the junta to clear them .But the rebels have vowed to disrupt the junta rule. On top of it if any coup or democratic rule comes in Burma( some time in future- months -years) things can rapidly change to anti chinese sentiments. Currently the oil pipes and ports are still a long way from completion.

There is some significant component missing in all the above.

Primarily economy is growing and it wants natural resources. To get the reources it spends money outside- does not bother how or where it gets them-- trying to use gwadar or sittwe or hambantota or seychelles or maldives or africa etc. China is pissing off lot of countries in the last few years. It is increasing now. Despite china knowing that making friendship with India Japan vietnam or US, makes lives easier for them,it is rubbing them off in a negative way.
Common sense dictates that it is easier to get things done by being friendly than have an enemy like US and at least with a regional power like India.
Having friendship will clear the sea lanes and with cooperation it can get more resources from everywhere.
China has a large number of chinese in poverty- some say greater than India but statistics are hard to come by in China.
Is the internal disturbances so great that it is willing to forego friendlier relations with others.
Is CCP worried that without continuous growth forever its rule will be doomed. Chinese workers have to be engaged in economic activities otherwise they will revolt. Does the power of CCP comes with keeping mango chinese quietly engaged in work with no time to think for political freedom.

It sure is a chinese mystery or a puzzle.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Sep 2010 21:55

china is busy raping sub-saharan africa in the name of development assistance right now

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 21 Sep 2010 22:10

ramana wrote:Kanson, To borrow the cliche its "puzzle wrapped in a mystery or enigma". The puzzle pieces can be evaluated with more diligence in unearthing the peices. The mystery is PRC is on crux/threshold of change we don't know which way it will develop. Its the mystery part that flummoxes us.

You are correct! The puzzle was considered understood before, but a mystery is developing...
Will it be the Xi Jinping (Princeling/Shanghai Clique) or Li Keqiang (CCYL/Hu faction)?
In other words is it 'grim and guts' of Xi or will it be 'economics' of Li?

One key to understanding China is its internal forces. What keeps the Party up at night? Fear!
As a maximal land state, China has a fear of break away regions far more than India does.
As an inequitably distributed wealth state, China has a fear of internal revolt and break up a la Russia.
The FDI driven growth model can be looked at in this light as an ability to trade land, power, water etc.
for maximum economic benefits for the masses, albeit it affords them a bit above subsistence living.
Between 2010 and 2020 the 60+ population of China will nearly double from 167 to 248 million.
By 2050 this number will be 437 million more than the entire population of the US at that time.
So internally, China is similar to some cartilaginous fish (ex sharks) that need to keep swimming to stay alive

Externally, modern China as a historical maximal land state faces the similar challenges with respect
to sea routes in IOR/South China sea as did the Song, Ming and Qing.
So whether it was Chola, Mughal or British India the interaction between China and India
as nation-states have taken a different path than the one-sided cultural flow we see from India to China.

Therefore it is a mystery if we will see a further run for power or for increased economic-inter linkages
with the coming leadership of folks such as Xi or Li. Perhaps it will be both. One can for sure understand
that the military seems to be winning arguments with the civilians, but is that just a point in time?
But for now it seem if one stares at the map of China long enough -
one wonder if one sees a dragon or a rooster?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2010 22:24

Korean unification is not in PRC interests and not for usual reasons of proxy pit bull. Thereis alarge Korean population in PRC in the lands adjacent to North Korea. The fear is a greater Korea will eat into its eastern regions. The first Emperor made his mark masacaring a lot of the Koreans in that area.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 21 Sep 2010 23:47

Chinese Panchen Lama

Though he is not recognized by the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans, Beijing has begun to use 'their' Panchen Lama full swing. It is a way to prepare the 'succession' of the Dalai Lama. He will probably soon start to travel abroad in 'safe' countries. It is sad that the Singaporean Foreign Minister accepted to play Beijing's small game.

During the meeting, Yeo invited the 11th Panchen Lama to visit Singapore in his capacity of a CPPCC member, and the Buddhist community also welcome him for religious practice.The Panchen Lama accepted the invitation happily.

george yeo is a singapore chinese politician.Yeo is married to lawyer Jennifer Yeo Lai Peng and he is also the uncle of Chinese American actress Gwendoline Yeo. Yeo has taken an important role in restarting the ancient Buddhist university, Nalanda University, in Bihar, India.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Sep 2010 23:55

- self-deleted -

Wrong Thread

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 21 Sep 2010 23:56

Not Sun Tzu

Whatever the outcome of the current stand-off with Japan over the fishing trawler near the Senkaku islands, Beijing has already lost one round of the geopolitical game.

nstead of reciprocating the Japanese government’s early and wise move to prevent escalation of tensions—by returning the trawler and crew, minus the captain—Beijing contended that trying the captain under Japanese law would be an implicit recognition of Japan’s territorial claims. If Japan now concedes to this demand it would be seen as succumbing to Chinese bullying. If Japan does not concede, the leadership in Beijing loses faces to its own people.

If Sun Tzu said something about not putting an enemy with the back to the wall, his modern day compatriots certainly have not paid heed.

However this plays out, Beijing’s actions will push Tokyo, Seoul and other East Asian capitals strongly towards each other and towards Washington. All the more so if, in the unlikely event, tensions lead to military conflict.
It might well be the all Beijing cares for is to ensure that its actions play well to its domestic audience. If so, it has badly miscalculated the international price it will have to pay for playing to the galleries.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 22 Sep 2010 00:03

China clamps down on anti-Japanese protests

Chinese authorities took swift action Saturday to ensure that anti-Japanese demonstrations did not devolve into protests against the government.

About 30 police and firefighting vehicles took up positions Saturday morning in front of the Japanese Embassy in central Beijing.
Several dozen young Chinese were milling around when a man shouted, "Japanese get out of Diaoyutai."
Diaoyutai is what the Chinese call the Senkaku Islands. The incident between the trawler and coast guard vessels occurred in waters near those islands.

Diplomatic sources said, "The Chinese authorities do not fear anti-Japanese protests, but having any situation arise that becomes uncontrollable."

China's rapid economic growth has created a growing income gap. Many of the protesters who demonstrated against Japan were from social sectors that have not fully enjoyed the benefits of that rapid growth.
Chinese authorities do not want any criticism from the anti-Japanese protests to suddenly turn on the government.
Analysts said government officials were worried that the idea could spread that demonstrations could be held anytime, regardless of the reason.

very interesting indeed. worsening income gap, social tensions and poverty can create conditions for social unrest. So economic activities at any cost.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 22 Sep 2010 00:16

krisna wrote:If Japan does not concede, the leadership in Beijing loses faces to its own people.

How can China accept losing face ? With a multi trillion dollar forex reserve, world's second largest economy and HUNDREDS of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles supported by a " Veto " , a permanent Security Council member and with aces like North Korea , Iran and Al Echandee Pakistan , if China loses face to a tiny island nation like Japan which is non-nuclear , a non permanant Security Council member , China should vow to not show its face again and hence shuttle-cock burqa should become the national dress for all Chinese including the CPC , PLA , PLAN AND PLAAF.

jagga · Post by **jagga** » 22 Sep 2010 00:17

China has a greater role in South Asia: US

a top United States' State Department official strongly defended a greater Chinese role in South Asia even as he acknowledged India's sensitivities over such a Beijing role.
Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, in the question-and-answer session that followed a major address on The Impact of US-China Relations in Asia at a conference at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, asked about the 'administration's thinking on the proper role for China in South Asia,' said, "China has an important role. It's a neighbor of South Asia. And it's unimaginable that China would not be involved."
"And so the question is, can we work together in a positive way on shared interests in creating peace, stability and economic opportunity in South Asia. I know there's a certain sensitivity in India about that, but I don't see that it should be the case," he argued, and added: "India has a good and rich relationship with China. Very fortunate to have the very knowledgeable China hands now at senior levels in the Indian government. And I think that's a good thing."Thus, Steinberg declared, "We welcome a constructive involvement by China."

In responding to the question by Robert Hathaway, director of the Asia Program at the Wilson Center, Steinberg continued that because the US wants China to play a constructive role in South Asia was the reason the US had "talked to him (President Hu Jintao) about it -- because we would like Chinese involvement to be constructive, to help us deal with the challenge of peace and stability in Afghanistan, and dealing with making sure that it doesn't become a terrorist haven again, which would threaten all of us."
He said such a scenario would not only threaten "all of us," but also preclude "building a relationship and cooperating to allow democracy to continue in Pakistan, and to deal with the economic challenges that they face so a more secure Pakistan can be a better partner for India and other countries in the region."
Thus, Steinberg reiterated that "I see many positive reasons for China to be involved," and emphasized that Beijing "will be involved because its interests are there, and its economic interests, security interests, political interests."

Steinberg said just as much as China had a role in South Asia, the US saw a role for India in East Asia. "Just as we talk about South Asia with China, we talk about East Asia with India, and that's an important part of our dialogue.
"we see India as an East Asia country. We engage with them on issues like North Korea and the like because we think of the importance that India plays".

He said in terms of the evolving order in East Asia, "One of the elements of it is that we think India's a key part, and we think the institutions should reflect that because we think that India has both an important interest and a lot to contribute to the common interest there."

"So, I think at the end of the day, it will be important for all of us to work together," he added.

Few questions comes to mind after reading the above.

1. Few days ago the news of big Chinese Troops presence comes to light. Now, US says China has a role to play in South Asia. Any connection between the two?
2.Is this the outcome from the Obama's last visit to china? IIRC, G-2 talks were doing the rounds that time. Also, US-China were in agreement that US and china will work togather on resolving south asian issues. ?
3. Steinberg also said that US saw a role for India in East Asia. US Chanakyiness? Divide and Rule?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Sep 2010 00:27

jagga wrote:
Few questions comes to mind after reading the above.

1. Few days ago the news of big Chinese Troops presence comes to light. Now, US says China has a role to play in South Asia. Any connection between the two?

3. Steinberg also said that US saw a role for India in East Asia. US Chanakyiness? Divide and Rule?

They wanted to see the reaction of Indian leadership to this event and did not find much. They just followed what is a reality

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2010 01:03

I would say its the US trying to promote conflict. Its a matter for US and PRC.
- The reason why PRC is in POK is to break-out of the potential blockade by US Pacific Fleet.

- In addition PRC is developing Western China and needs economical transportation routes for those areas. In other words Gwadar and Chittagong ports will be served by the Western China hinterlands.

- By moving its troops in to POK PRC is using TSP just as US was using TSP. While POK is Indian territory occupied by TSP there isn't much India can do about it at this time. In future we can think of arrangements to not imapct China when we take that area back long term.
- If you feel disheartened then please understand we are looking at very long term issues and its not yet time to force the pace as it can cause fissures in our own land.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 22 Sep 2010 01:03

^ It would be a surprise if India was not aware of Chinese games or incursions.
Countries choose to react when it is conducive for them to react and posture to such activity.
All part of the tri-party dance onlee... please pass the chai biscoot as usual.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2010 01:06

And don't fall for any games or charades. Haste makes waste. Emotion is even worse.

Deep back channel might even have said OK for it stymies massa plans to have Cashmere.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Sep 2010 04:50

China Tells U.S. to Stay Out of Dispute Over South China Sea's Sovereignty
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-2 ... ignty.html
( to put inperspective what we are dealing with , I suspect PRC Panda playing psychological games and soon bluff will be called by one of the countries needled by Panda)

China signaled for the U.S. to stay out of disputes over the South China Sea, three days before President Barack Obama is due to meet with regional leaders concerned over China’s territorial claims in the oil-and gas- rich waters. “China enjoys indisputable sovereign rights over the South China Sea islands and adjacent waters,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters today in Beijing. “We oppose the internationalization and expansion of the South China Sea dispute because it will only make the issue more complicated.” Portions of the South China Sea are claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. China claims almost the entire sea, and Chinese maps show a dotted line swooping southward hundreds of miles from the Chinese island province of Hainan to form a claim U.S. officials call the ”cow’s tongue.”
China Rebuke

That drew a rebuke from Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who said “internationalizing” the issue “can only make matters worse and more difficult to solve.” Clinton’s “seemingly fair” comments are “virtually an attack on China,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in July.
Jiang said that “issues concerning territorial sovereignty and major development are a core interest” of China’s. The South China Sea “is not an international issue nor a regional issue and should be solved peacefully through friendly consultation,” Jiang said. “It should be properly settled between China and countries directly involved.” Jiang’s comments on the South China Sea territorial dispute come as China and Japan are locked in a diplomatic dispute centering on conflicting territorial claims in the East China Sea. China has suspended high-level diplomatic contacts with Japan over the Sept. 7 detention of a Chinese fishing boat captain whose trawler collided with two Japanese coast guard vessels in disputed waters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2010 06:44

Prem wrote:China Tells U.S. to Stay Out of Dispute Over South China Sea's Sovereignty
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-2 ... ignty.html

The U.S. is pushing back against a more aggressive Chinese presence in the South China Sea, urging countries such as Vietnam and its neighbors to unite to balance China’s increasing assertiveness.

LOL look at the bloody chutzpah!

The US sits in the South China sea and seeks to restrict China by telling Vietnam, (where "gooks and slanteyes" were having the crap bombed out of their asses in "Operation Rolling Thunder" when I was a student in college) that they should now oppose the Chinese. Flippin heck

I can understand the Chinese viewpoint. I am not saying the Chinese are nice, but the Americans are as bad.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2010 07:02

Prem That report confirms US was talking thru musharraf when the Dy Sec of State said China in South Asia is good. So it confirms PRC snatched g-B from massa.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 22 Sep 2010 11:19

IAF activates Nyoma airfield close to China border

Interesting move...its clear that our establishment has already mobilized its focus in one direction...whats important is..it should continue moving and never do a U-turn or halt it.