Bharat Rakshak

RajeshA wrote:

Pulikeshi wrote:Here is a simple example of what coercion does to the human mind:
Coercion crazed Chinese Man

I think CPC makes much better robots than Japanese!

You mean Hubots

chaanakya wrote:

Pulikeshi wrote:Here is a simple example of what coercion does to the human mind:
Coercion crazed Chinese Man

RajeshA wrote: I think CPC makes much better robots than Japanese!

You mean Hubots

Actually I meant 'Lobots' and not 'Robots'. Lobotomy in PRC is highly advanced.

Christopher Sidor wrote:Many have suggested that we play the Tibet or Taiwan or Xinjiang card with China. But none of them have, have listed out what playing these cards will entail.

Let us take the example of Taiwan. Taiwan itself has not sought independence from China. Some have said Taiwan has been threatened by China so it has not sought independence. China has in the recent past 5-7 years become strong enough to threaten Taiwan. Before that it was not strong enough. Post the Cold-war ended, Taiwan could have declared independence. It did not. So for some 12 odd years, i.e. 1989-2001, when its power (militarily and economic) was greater than China it did nothing. Taiwan could have declared independence post Tienanmen incident in 1989. Taiwan did not. Supporting Taiwan will not provide us with anything. Will Taiwan support India, if India were to play the Tibet card? The answer is no. India will not be able to help Taiwan with men and/or material, in case the push becomes a shove.

We need to understand Taiwanese history better - Taiwan was ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (the KMT) until 2000. This was a party dominated entirely by Chinese tranplanted on Taiwan with Chiang Kai-Shek and his merry band of thugs. The KMT lineage in Taiwan till 2000 was as follows: Chiang Kai-Shek -> Chiang Ching-Guo (Kai-Shek's son) -> Lee Teng-Hui. That latter was the only ethnic Taiwanese in the story - no surprise then that he started talking de jure independence as soon as he took over (and coined the term "special state-to-state relations" to describe Taiwan's relations with China), which sent the Chinese ballistic (quite literally - in the lead-up to the first ever democratic elections in Taiwan in 1996 that returned Lee Teng-Hui to power, China started lobbing live missiles over Taiwan into the sea - an intimidation that did not eventualy help the Chinese case). No surprise also that the KMT kicked out Lee Teng-Hui as soon as his Presidential term was over - he then started the Taiwan Solidarity Union with de jure independence on its agenda.

Bottom line: Until 1996, the Taiwanese were ruled by a bunch of Chinese who pined to fight and settle scores with another bunch of Chinese (who'd bested them in 1949) - the Taiwanese themselves didn't have much say in seeking de jure independence (much as they wanted to).

naren wrote: Taiwan is the most prospective IMO. Dont believe in all the motherland BS. Thats the excuse sold for mango Cheeni abdul not to revolt against the "people's" republic. The elites must be hurt where it matters. Establishing military ties with Taiwan will directly hit the CCP in its core - tremendous H&D blow, giving "ideas" to lesser mortals. That is the stick India must wield. Its a low cost and very practical one. India must drive home the point that if China continues to faq with India, then Taiwan will be "lost forever". Imagine what would happen if Arihant's little sister Commiehant is gifted to Taiwan. More than the strategic implication, its the popular sentiment of the mango abduls which will stick it to the Beijing elites.

US will do its best to not let Taiwan fall to PRC - its a means to keep a growing power in check. If Taiwan does unite with PRC, that would be a tremendous lost opportunity for India. PRC would be "uncontrollable" - they would only p!$$ on India more intensely.

Very well put. As I've been saying for a while, India absolutely cannot afford to have the KMT win the next elections in Taiwan. Current opinion polls predict a KMT defeat, but we have to nudge it in the right direction.

Important though to pick our words carefully - Taiwan will never unite with China; in our nightmare scenario, it might be annexed by China.

On a different note, loved the name of little sister Commiehant...

TonyMontana wrote:

shiv wrote:
Maybe they want both. I'm willing to bet that they want wealth and a good time more than wars. Trying to get those outside territories is going to bring the CCP a war and a war means a temporary slowing down of some economic benefits and a permanent change in some things. Especially if China occupies territory and needs to hold it in the face of insurgency like the US holds Iraq and Afghanistan.

Chances are that the CCP wil avoid war if possible. That is fine for everyone, but the CCP is an opaque organization that has imposed pointless and mindless conflict on others. If, as I have surmised, conflict can be damaging to the CCP there must be other special circumstances in which conflict is an advantage for the CCP provided the blowback on the economy can be kept down and the peasants kept happy and without rebellion. No time now - but I will speculate of what sort of motivation the CCP may have for that type of war.

This is my point exactly. You think the CCP is dumb or simple at your own peril. I will put money on that there will not be major conflicts if the CCP can help it.

The CCP is not dumb, but it has to play a balancing game. It cannot stay in power unchallenged unless it delivers the goods to the Chinese "peasants". So wantonly "making war" is a dangerous game. I agree that the CCP may not want to get into war.

But from the viewpoint of a non Chinese neighbor of China - the CCP acts belligerently. To me this is hardly characteristic of the "Sun Tzu" that everyone keeps crediting the Chinese with. Being clever would be to lull all potential adversaries into innocent ill-preparedness and then strike them when they do not expect it. That is what Mao did to a dumb Nehru but none of his successors seem to have managed to catch on to his act. China acts so belligerent that it sends out a warning signal to everyone to prepare for war with China.

Now if the CCP does not want war as you have stated (and I agree) why would they act so dumbly aggressive, with no finesse like a mad dog?

One possibility is that the CCP see themselves the inheritors of an ancient civilization that has been wronged by many - including the Japanese and the West and western puppets (India?). So the CCP makes China behave like a growing angry dog protecting a bone. The dog will not attack you unless you try and get his bone. If you tippy toe round the dog - the dog is growing and peeing on all rocks and mounds and telling you to keep off. That then is to me a satisfactory explanation of Chinese "diplomatic" (ha ha) behavior.

But that still does not explain how the CCP could be forced into war. It could happen. There are unexplained internal dynamics in the CCP that could lead to war. China seems to be readying itself for war and it is best for China's neighbors to prepare to punish China militarily. Anything less that that would encourage the uncouth CCP to read the world wrongly. China is powerful, but heck the world is full of powers.

There is only cursory understanding of Taiwan for most folks. They have a rich an varied history.
The native Taiwanese have been struggling to maintain their culture, language and traditions:

Taiwan seeks to save indigenous languages

It took a long time in the 17th century for the Han to come to accept an Island as part of their
imperial realm. Perhaps the Manchu Qing had more to do with it reluctantly due to sea routes.
China had always been described as a land limited by mountains and the seas.

shiv wrote: The CCP is not dumb, but it has to play a balancing game. It cannot stay in power unchallenged unless it delivers the goods to the Chinese "peasants". So wantonly "making war" is a dangerous game. I agree that the CCP may not want to get into war.

But from the viewpoint of a non Chinese neighbor of China - the CCP acts belligerently. To me this is hardly characteristic of the "Sun Tzu" that everyone keeps crediting the Chinese with. Being clever would be to lull all potential adversaries into innocent ill-preparedness and then strike them when they do not expect it. That is what Mao did to a dumb Nehru but none of his successors seem to have managed to catch on to his act. China acts so belligerent that it sends out a warning signal to everyone to prepare for war with China.

Now if the CCP does not want war as you have stated (and I agree) why would they act so dumbly aggressive, with no finesse like a mad dog?

One possibility is that the CCP see themselves the inheritors of an ancient civilization that has been wronged by many - including the Japanese and the West and western puppets (India?). So the CCP makes China behave like a growing angry dog protecting a bone. The dog will not attack you unless you try and get his bone. If you tippy toe round the dog - the dog is growing and peeing on all rocks and mounds and telling you to keep off. That then is to me a satisfactory explanation of Chinese "diplomatic" (ha ha) behavior.

But that still does not explain how the CCP could be forced into war. It could happen. There are unexplained internal dynamics in the CCP that could lead to war. China seems to be readying itself for war and it is best for China's neighbors to prepare to punish China militarily. Anything less that that would encourage the uncouth CCP to read the world wrongly. China is powerful, but heck the world is full of powers.

Current Chinese behaviour flows from the application of their hallowed principle of "kill the chicken to scare the monkey". In essence, they're seeking to accrue power by rattling a sabre they do not possess...

Pulikeshi wrote:There is only cursory understanding of Taiwan for most folks. They have a rich an varied history.
The native Taiwanese have been struggling to maintain their culture, language and traditions:

Taiwan seeks to save indigenous languages

Exactly. And recall that a good 65% of Taiwan's population has some indigenous ancestry (an artefact of Chinese outbound emigration policies under various dynasties that permitted only males to travel to Taiwan).

Our establishment tends to gibly dismiss the Taiwanese as Chinese..

RajeshA wrote:AKalam ji,

The 10% growth rates that are important for the CPC to retain its Mandate of Heaven can be seriously threatened if PRC loses its privileged/free access to world markets.

That could happen if it is shown that CPC/PLA is extensively abusing human rights and PRC is being overly aggressive with its neighbors.

If you don't show the world, that PRC has many weak spots, nobody in the world would come to the idea of poking into them.

RajeshA ji,

Human rights abuse has been a problem for PRC for decades, but it did not stop its engagement with the West.

I believe the West chose PRC as its cheap labor factory floor, because it was the most efficient and easy to make money from, for large and small western multinationals and retailers.

The problem we have today is that the CPC led rising PRC is slowly evolving from a poor communist state to a relatively prosperous fascist state that has become a regional bully and may soon challenge US/Western leadership at some point. So obviously there is a need, specially from Western perspective, to look at how to deal with this menace.

Contrary to many who expressed their opinions about Tibet, I do not believe it is a weak point of CPC led PRC which can be utilized to change its behavior. It is my belief that Han Chinese majority of 1.2 billion are 1/5th of humanity and they are normal human beings like others in the world. The problem lies with a small minority namely, CPC leadership and the one party system that keeps it in power. CPC has done a great job of bringing a huge number of PRC population out of poverty, that is to their credit. But absolute power corrupts absolutely, so a bit of power and prosperity is getting to their head probably, now they want complete regional and world domination.

The main weak spot of PRC, I believe, is its one party system, which under the veneer of a (capitalism embracing) communist entity (an oxymoron) is slowly evolving into a fascist entity, which may increasingly use Han chauvinism and nationalism as a unifying tool.

So it is high time for the West and PRC's neighbors to get into an effort to transform PRC from an irresponsible bully to a responsible regional and global player. The best method of transformation I believe is to attack its one party fascist system and force it to become a multi-party system, using internal and external pressure, as I tried to explain in my post above.

Arihant wrote:Our establishment tends to gibly dismiss the Taiwanese as Chinese..

Not just the establishment. It is a widely held believe the world over.

Taiwanese People should move from having Mandarin as the official language to some other dialect, perhaps Taiwanese Hokkien, which would be spoken by about 70% of the Population.

Only 12% of the Taiwanese population consists of those who migrated to Taiwan with the KMT, the same KMT that has been ruling Taiwan for so long.

RajeshA,

You have sketched the idea quite well. Here are a couple of points:

1. China does not want a direct confrontation with the West. Not yet!
What China is trying to do is establish itself as a hegemonic Asian power.

2. China has traded land, water, power, humans (labor) for FDI -
the idea was to create Singapore on steroids and they have succeeded.
Only two freedoms are available - food and fashion and of this there is plenty in urban China.
The larger rural poverty - one child, family breakdown due to migration, etc are weak links.
Lack of land ownership, real estate bubble, black money circulation etc. all weak links.

3. Tibet is alien to most mainland Chinese. Either there is awe of spiritualism or contempt.
Tend to agree with you somewhat that this is not their weakest link, even if it can be.
India and others if needed will need to do more for it to develop into a weak link.
It is an irritant to the Chinese a la stapled passports, etc. that India supports Dalai Lama.

4. Fascism or Oligarchy can succeed at reasonably efficient distribution of economic good.
However, it tends to be rather inefficient at distribution of political good. Now some would
say there is no difference between economics and politics Most intellects from China
would talk to you about horizontal (economics) versus vertical (politics).
It is only partly correct to view the vertical as weak due to a single party.

5. The key weakness is ironically the horizontal. It remains to be seen how long the trade off
of currency manipulation can be maintained. Multiparty (even two party) democracies are
more optimal (perhaps even at Nash Equilibrium) with completing constraints of politics
and economics. Hence efficient at distribution of politico-economic good.

6. India would do well in such an environment to align with the US transactionally.
(If alignment could be categorized as follows: Allies, Transactional, Unaligned).

1. support Taiwan, US bears most of the cost and obligations. India can get the
   benefits and raise the heat on China for its incursions into POK, stapled visas, etc.
2. around the world China enters into countries, tries coercion and leaves a bad taste.
   India waits, engineers and uses the opportunity to take up cause of the local people.
3. India entices other Asian powers with a growing market, opens manufacturing
   and provides an engine for economic growth.
4. India cooperates with China on climate, etc. but competes with it
   politico-economically.

Finally, most Chinese are offended when outsiders tell them about China.
This is even more so the case when it is India telling them about China
India could do well to fund or encourage Indian writers offering unsolicited advice on China
Just a few paisa to think about...

Arihant wrote:

Pulikeshi wrote:There is only cursory understanding of Taiwan for most folks. They have a rich an varied history.
The native Taiwanese have been struggling to maintain their culture, language and traditions:

Taiwan seeks to save indigenous languages

Exactly. And recall that a good 65% of Taiwan's population has some indigenous ancestry (an artefact of Chinese outbound emigration policies under various dynasties that permitted only males to travel to Taiwan).

Our establishment tends to gibly dismiss the Taiwanese as Chinese..

Well looks like I am guilty of this charge as well. And certainly it would make more sense for us to study Taiwanese culture and ethnicity.

In such a situation I think Taiwan would not accept one china policy and then my earlier view on this stands revised. So the point to be made here is that we should certainly take advantage of that enhanced understanding.

Thanks Arihant and Pulikeshi

Published on Sep 28, 2010
By Willy Lam
Is China Afraid of Its Own People?: Foreign Policy

Indeed, the extraordinary lengths to which Beijing has gone to rein in public protests over the alleged Japanese occupation of the Diaoyu, as the islands are called in China, has exposed a critical shortcoming of the so-called China model: the Chinese Communist Party leadership's inability to make effective use of public opinion to advance domestic as well as diplomatic goals. Instead of leading public opinion, these days Chinese leaders are sometimes pushed into uncomfortable stances that reduce their options.

One reason Beijing is so nervous about demonstrations is that based on past experience, "troublemakers" often take advantage of such rare occasions to air grievances regarding nondiplomatic issues, especially corruption within party and government departments. That explains why at least nine activists, according to the watchdog Chinese Human Rights Defenders, were detained or warned not to participate in the rallies in Beijing and Guangzhou. Among them were Xu Zhiyong, a lecturer at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, and Teng Biao, a lawyer. Xu and Teng are well-known NGO activists who have stood up for victims of official corruption.

An excellent piece. Everybody should read it. China's Achilles Heel is sowwww big.

Chinks in the Chinese Armor

Writing and Reading posts on 'Managing Pakistan's Failure' and 'Managing Chinese Threat' has given me a Eureka moment, especially the previous post on the article "Is China Afraid of Its Own People?" was illuminating. I wouldn't say it something terribly new, but it is new to me.

It concerns drawing parallels between the Pakistani and Chinese states and society. So here it goes.

1. Pakistan is ruled by a small elite, an Army-Mullah combine. PRC is ruled by a small elite, the PLA-CPC combine.
2. Pakistani Elite present themselves as the protectors of Islam, an expansionary ideology. CPC presents itself as protector of the Middle Kingdom - the Chinese Empire - an expansionary vision.
3. Pakistani Elite, ethnically an alliance of Turko-Persian-Arab invaders and converted local dominant Pakjabi tribes, have imposed their ideology on the masses, trapping them into paying obeisance. CPC has imposed a communist dictatorship on the masses, forcing them into paying obeisance.
4. Pakistani Elite force their rule on other ethnicities - Baluchis, Balawaristanis, Pushtuns, etc. CPC force their rule on other ethnicities - Mongols, Koreans, Sui, Uyghurs, Tibetans.
5. Pakistani Elite have devised a victim mentality for their people - Loss of Rule over Hindus, "truncated and moth-eaten Pakistan", "Loss of East Pakistan", Kashmir, etc. CPC too have devised a victim mentality for their people - Opium Wars, alleged Rape of Nanking, Japanese Occupation of China, etc. In China's case, there truly was a loss, but these memories have been kept fresh, unlike India where nobody speaks of the millions who died as a result of Muslim invasions and occupations in Bharat, or even of British atrocities.
6. Pakistan has found a bête noire in India. China uses Japan as its bête noire. Both have a love/hate relationship with USA.
7. Pakistani Elite keep the people pumped up and intoxicated with Kashmir. CPC uses Taiwan, Diaoyu, South China Sea.
8. Pakistani Army brags about 1 TFTA = 10 Hindus and makes threatening noises. PLA also adopts an aggressive posture towards neighboring countries.
9. The list can be extended.

Why are such comparisons useful? Well to see, if the weaknesses of one, helps us in finding the Achilles heel of the other. So a few angles to look at would be:

1. If Foreign aid is cut off from Pakistan, Pakistani State would probably collapse. If Foreign markets are cut off from China, China too would see a lot of upheaval.
2. The danger to the Pakistani Elite which swears by Muslim Chauvinism, comes from groups which swear by a more pious/extremist version of the same - Talibanism. The danger to the CPC, which swears by nationalism, comes from groups which swear by a more extreme version of the same - Netizen Nationalism. The ideology-oriented Pakistani Elite find it difficult to credibly fight off the ideological challenge of Taliban. The nationalism-oriented CPC finds it difficult to credibly fight off the nationalist challenge of Netizen-Nationalists.
3. More Jihadism in Pakistan would bring it into conflict with the West (Pakistan-originating terrorism in West). More Nationalism in China would bring it into conflict with USA and its allies in East Asia (Chinese aggression in East Asia, and naval and diplomatic skirmishes with USA).
4. Western reaction to Pakistani Terrorism would breed more Jihadis and Talibarbarians. American reaction and that of its allies in East Asia would breed more Netizen-Nationalists.
5. Because of anti-Western Jihadism, Pakistan is already a very dangerous place for Westerners. Because of anti-Western and anti-Japanese Netizen-Nationalism, PRC would also become a dangerous place to be a Japanese or even a Westerner.
6. Talibarbarian/Jihadi takeover in Pakistan would mean all American aid to Pakistan will be cut, making Pakistani economy dive into the gutter. Netizen-Nationalist takeover in China would mean all FDI in China would flow out and world markets for Chinese products would close, making Chinese economy slump.
7. Any Jihadi/Talibarbarian takeover in Pakistan would mean an overthrow of the current Pakistani Elite and endless chaos and fragmentation of Pakistan. It would mean a blooming of gang-lordism and infinite violence. Any Netizen-Nationalist takeover in PRC would also mean an overthrow of CPC and chaos and fragmentation of China, because the people have many many other grievances and are simply using the nationalistic carrier wave for carry their complaints. It too would allow thousand mutinies to light up the Chinese landscape.

So Pakistan needs more Islam, and China needs more Nationalism.

All trade wars with the West, all friction due to currency manipulations, all naval skirmishes between Chinese Navy and other navies from USA, Japan and elsewhere, all threats emanating from PRC, Taiwanese Independence, Tibetan Merger with India, all of it is welcome.

Chinese Nationalism should cause an exponentially growing chain-reaction shutting down the CPC reactor.

Even if Chinese Super-Nationalists are able to take control of the whole country through PLA, CPC would have lost the Mandate of Heaven. They could also lose the sympathy of the world along with their markets. India could in this scenario be able to transplant China as the manufacturing-hub of the world and make up for lost time, bringing our economy at par with that of China or even leaving it behind. With China having made the whole world its enemy, could mean that India gets the technology from the more technologically advanced countries to pull up and close the gap with China.

We should explore whether the Netizen-Nationalists of China can be compared with the Taliban and whether such a scenario is possible.

Originally posted by VinodTK
Published on Oct 1, 2010
Japanese PM Naoto Kan warns of China's military rise: BBC

"The rise of China has been remarkable in recent years," Mr Kan told Japan's parliament.

"But we are concerned about its strengthening defence capabilities without transparency and accelerating maritime activities spanning from the Indian Ocean to the East China Sea."

Questions of Sovereignty on China’s National Day
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/01/que ... ional-day/

For both China’s Asian neighbors and the United States, this pricklier and more aggressive approach to border disputes is troubling. Chinese decision makers appear to have concluded that its combination of greater economic wherewithal and growing military capability allow Beijing to dictate the resolution of border disputes in its own favor.This Chinese approach clearly ignores the equities of its neighbors. Just as important given the array of U.S. alliances in the region, it raises the potential for U.S.-Chinese confrontation—Note the various U.S. declarations of support for Japan in the Senkakus dispute.The United States is therefore confronted with the unenviable task of signaling to Beijing that its widening territorial claims are destabilizing, while still maintaining good relations with the PRC. This entails balancing the demands of reassuring allies, maintaining regional stability, and preserving a working relationship with China. Through it all, the U.S. must remain consistent, committed, and clear in our policies.

RajeshA wrote:Chinks in the Chinese Armor

Writing and Reading posts on 'Managing Pakistan's Failure' and 'Managing Chinese Threat' has given me a Eureka moment, especially the previous post on the article "Is China Afraid of Its Own People?" was illuminating. I wouldn't say it something terribly new, but it is new to me.

It concerns drawing parallels between the Pakistani and Chinese states and society. So here it goes.

1. Pakistan is ruled by a small elite, an Army-Mullah combine. PRC is ruled by a small elite, the PLA-CPC combine.
2. Pakistani Elite present themselves as the protectors of Islam, an expansionary ideology. CPC presents itself as protector of the Middle Kingdom - the Chinese Empire - an expansionary vision.
3. Pakistani Elite, ethnically an alliance of Turko-Persian-Arab invaders and converted local dominant Pakjabi tribes, have imposed their ideology on the masses, trapping them into paying obeisance. CPC has imposed a communist dictatorship on the masses, forcing them into paying obeisance.
4. Pakistani Elite force their rule on other ethnicities - Baluchis, Balawaristanis, Pushtuns, etc. CPC force their rule on other ethnicities - Mongols, Koreans, Sui, Uyghurs, Tibetans.
5. Pakistani Elite have devised a victim mentality for their people - Loss of Rule over Hindus, "truncated and moth-eaten Pakistan", "Loss of East Pakistan", Kashmir, etc. CPC too have devised a victim mentality for their people - Opium Wars, alleged Rape of Nanking, Japanese Occupation of China, etc. In China's case, there truly was a loss, but these memories have been kept fresh, unlike India where nobody speaks of the millions who died as a result of Muslim invasions and occupations in Bharat, or even of British atrocities.
6. Pakistan has found a bête noire in India. China uses Japan as its bête noire. Both have a love/hate relationship with USA.
7. Pakistani Elite keep the people pumped up and intoxicated with Kashmir. CPC uses Taiwan, Diaoyu, South China Sea.
8. Pakistani Army brags about 1 TFTA = 10 Hindus and makes threatening noises. PLA also adopts an aggressive posture towards neighboring countries.

This is by and large a good list although I have a minor disagreement in principle about that article you have linked. I will mention that later. The two biggest differences between the Pakistan model and the China model are that Pakistan says "There is no God but Allah and we the Pakistan army are his Prophets" while China says "There is no God but the Communist Party". The second difference is that the CPC has used coercion to do things that are required for development like reducing population growth, fostering a secular education and providing grass roots infrastructure. In Pakistan the army has hogged all the funds for itself, allowed rampant population growth for which it is difficult to "catch up" with education to produce robotic factory workers.

For these reasons, although the two systems of oligarchy and coercion are eerily similar China is leaps and bounds ahead of Pureshitland.

The other difference is how both oligarchies have used propaganda on their own people in different ways. Both Pakistan and China have had to survive in the shadow of the dominant "western civilization" that has always praised what the west considers as good and wholesome and has sought to bring down what the west considers as haraam.

The west saw Islam as good and positive. Muslims were cousins - people of the book. Islam could not be bad. Communism was bad. Godless.

So Pakistan could be openly Islamic - misogyny, Hudood, sharia etc all being used to keep people in check by an oligarchy while they received gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh from the west. Pakistan did not have to be a closed society that imposed visible censorship of information from the outside because the whole world was praising Pakistan and egging it on. China on the other hand had to close up its boundaries against a critical world.

Both oligarchies have used "hatred of the other" - the "outsider" to whip their people into a nationalistic frenzy. But here again difference crop up. Pakistanis allowed their population to arm themselves with weapons and trusted their faith in Allah to keep fighting the outsiders. The Chinese did not trust their people with weapons and the communist party retained all coercive power.

These differences can now explain the differences between Pakistan and China. China has an educated and relatively wealthy population that is starved of political power, freedom and information. (I disagree with Tony Montana's viewpoint that those "freedoms" are unnecessary as long as people get what they want - but I will address that in a separate post.) Pakistan has a chaotic, illiterate, poor and armed population.

Both these populations are sought to be controlled by the same ideological oligarchy that created them. And in both cases coercion is the method used. In both cases the oligarchy (The Pakistan army and the CCP) see a break up/ weakening of of their country and a loss of power if the people are not coerced. In both cases the oligarchy are saying "We (the rulers) define China" or "We (the rulers) define Pakistan". In both cases they are not saying "You the people need to define China/Pakistan". It is another matter that both oligarchies have used a similar trick to try and convince people that they are united behind a particular definition of "one China" or "one Pakistan". In Pakistan Islam was the glue. For China "One people" was the glue. And even god cannot help those who disagree.

So both in China and Pakistan people have to be "kept in check" and not allowed to step beyond certain boundaries that overstep the limits placed by the vision of "nation" by Pakistan army or the communist party. All governments MUST fear their people. It is fear of the people that ensures that governments take the people's opinion on the future course of the nation and the people who are in government. A government that does not fear its people is one that retains coercive elements to control its people in various ways. There are degrees and degrees of coercion, and the more coercive a government is, the less chaotic a nation appears, and challenges to the government have to be much more violent. Less coercive governments have nations that appear chaotic, but the governments change as per the will of the people. So in Pakistan we now have a very violent population. Only such a violent population can oppose a coercive government. In China the level of violence of the population is much less and kept in check by the CPC giving the appearance of order. What the CPC has to fear is widespread discontent which will require violent suppression. As always it will be the "outliers" who cause the most trouble - Pashtuns, Shias, Balwaristanis, Uighurs, Tibetans. The Sunnis and the Han will by and large eat out of the hands of the oligarchy. If you are Paki Sunni or Chinese Han then you will sincerely believe that the outliers must be coerced and must not have their own way.

Finally I must write a word complimenting the US on the way it has recognized and "used" both oligarchies. The Pakistani population were militaristic and their militarism was used as cannon fodder against communism. Next door the commies were slobbering for goodies and China offered sweatshops for cheap goods and that was effectively used by the US. One was used militarily to further the cause of the US and the other was used economically.

The assertion that "All nations are some form of coercion" reminded me of a conversation with an Islamist in Indonesia described by Naipaul in his book "Among the believers".

Naipaul asks the man about all the restrictions that Islam places - Do this. Do that. Don't do this. Don't do that. And asks why people should not be free to say and do what they please.

The Islamist student points to a goat tied nearby and says (stating from memory) "Look at that goat. That goat is happy. He gets food and shelter and is protected against predators. In the same way humans who are tied to Islam are not restricted, They are protected and happier."

Clearly a lot of assumptions about the goat's state of mind are being made in order to push Islam. The analogy of tied goats being like happy Muslims can be funny. But the broader point is the assumptions being made about what goats, or humans, may need. No consideration is given to the fact that if the goat is left free it will not hang about exactly where it was tied. It will move around and eat what it finds. It will mate when possible and lie down where it can. Both the Chicoms and Islamists make certain assumptions for the individual and use that to exert control on them ostensibly (and allegedly) in the "larger interests of the group" Typically if I make assumptions about what you need and force them on you I cannot then claim that it is in OUR interest. It is only in MY interest. It is not necessarily in YOUR interest. So "interest of the group" is often a misused term by an oligarchy that exerts power to push their interests.

If I tell you what to think, you may never think about what you want to tell me!
Both of us are worse of for that...

Pulikeshi wrote:If I tell you what to think, you may never think about what you want to tell me!
Both of us are worse of for that...

The interesting part about such a relationship is that physical power and coercion can be used to set up "critical deficiencies" for you (deficiency of physical safety, deficiency of food) after which the created deficiency can be filled in exchange for ideological cooperation. This is a protection racket by another name.

"If you don't agree with me I will kill you. You get life, the most precious gift of all, for merely agreeing with me. You lose so little, gain so much"

Yes, but it is even worse. It stifles innovation the kernel of evolution.
Therefore one will see many revolutions - If you read China's history they are catastrophic!

India has a million minor mutinies, China has few but catastrophic revolutions.

shiv saar,

thanks for presenting the differences between Pakistani Elite and CPC also. It makes the comparison much more complete.

I'll probably be using it as a reference and will come back to your points.

A general question to all Sun Tzu Zhōu sìs ('Gurus' in Chinese Simplified ):

Can run-away nationalism in China be harnessed to bring about the downfall of PRC? Can one see any parallels between these Chinese nationalists and the Taliban and their use for such ends?

All feedback is most welcome!

Published on Oct 01, 2010
By Alex Calvo
Rare Earths: China's Weapon Too Soon: PanOrient News

History teaches us that the decision to use a weapon must take into account not only its immediate effects, but also the longer run impact. This is particularly the case when, by its very nature, a certain weapon is likely not to be available as soon as an enemy develops countermeasures.

Since China's current quasi-monopoly on rare earths is not purely the result of their natural distribution, but rather of the decision by other countries not to pursue their production, Beijing cannot count on this advantage forever.

Furthermore, every instance where this monopoly is used in the realm of foreign and defense policy, or even where it is simply threatened, provides an added incentive for potential victims to, at the very least, create or reinforce strategic stocks and perhaps seek alternative suppliers.

Beijing could therefore be expected to be cautious about the implications of its recent move, downplaying the threat to importers and reserving this powerful instrument for some decisive future engagement.

Although it seemed until recently that this was indeed the policy Beijing was following, the unofficial embargo imposed on Japan over the trawler skipper has put to rest any such assumptions. China pressed the button, and now there is no going back: The regime will never again be able to credibly assure other countries that they have nothing to fear from its stranglehold on supplies.

The latest Senkaku incident may therefore be seen as a pyrrhic victory for Beijing, since it may have forsaken the future use of a powerful weapon in exchange for no substantial gain other than the satisfaction of seeing the "dwarf pirates" (as the Japanese are traditionally know in China) climb down.

It is of course still too soon to see how Japan and other countries will react, but those voices clamoring for an increase in strategic stockpiles of rare earths and a reopening of mines will have seen their points of view validated.

After all, who will be China's next victim be?

India refused to send combat troops to Korea in 1950 and helped mediate an end to the conflict, only to see her efforts rewarded by war in 1962.

Tokyo, whose decision to go to war in 1941 in search of a decisive blow leading to a negotiated peace was at least partly prompted by the US-British-Dutch oil embargo, surely remembers the vital importance of assuring industrial supplies.

An urgent debate is therefore needed that leads, ideally, to a reopening of Mountain Pass Mine, environmental considerations notwithstanding, and an effort by countries such as Australia and India to develop their own mines. There should also be an effort to pool strategic stockpiles among democracies.

Published on Oct 02, 2010
Seas fill with tension over China's moves: Asahi Shimbun

The South China Sea holds the Spratly and Paracel islands that a number of nations, including China, claim sovereignty over. Tensions involving China occur on an almost daily basis in those waters.

In mid-June, Vietnamese fishing boats were working in the waters off the Gulf of Tonkin as they have done for many years. But Chinese authorities started to seize the boats, and by the end of June, 31 vessels were in Chinese custody.

Toward the end of April, Beijing unilaterally declared that between May 16 and Aug. 1, fishing would be banned in the waters north of the 12 degrees north latitude line.

The boats seized had crossed that line.

However, no reports appeared in Vietnam about China's new measure.

The seizures came to light only after a group of Vietnamese expats, upset by Beijing's actions, released the information over the Internet. But people in Vietnam were unable to access that website or the blogs that touched upon the seizures.

In late June, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry issued a statement that said, "The Spratly and Paracel islands are Vietnamese territory." Although China was not mentioned in the statement, it was clearly in response to the seizures.

China is currently building a naval base in Sanya, on the southern tip of Hainan Island, that serves as a gateway to the South China Sea. The base, which will be one of the country's largest, will have a port for a nuclear-powered submarine as well as an aircraft carrier now being constructed. Once the base is completed, China will have overwhelming influence over the South China Sea.

Can run-away nationalism in China be harnessed to bring about the downfall of PRC? Can one see any parallels between these Chinese nationalists and the Taliban and their use for such ends?

No pretensions to gurudom and all but FWIW: No. IMHO.

Like sri shiv explains - it has only partly to do with the lack of an armed populace, a section of which might have gone on to become the nationalist talibs. Not happening in PRC.

However, cheeni hypernationalists can (and are) helping speedup the PRC boat in the wrong direction by choosing valor over discretion, so to say. The Ayub Khan parallel - '1:10 and shivering dhoti SDREs cersus pure martial TFTA' kinda propagandu taken too seriously even by policy circles, not just the rabble outside - probably holds. IMHO, its possible, even probable, that Cheeni variety hypernationalistas are susceptible to similar propagandu -> unrealistic expectations -> face + H&D issues indirectly associated -> miscalculation -> overreach and through that route, doom. Perhaps.

But a talib style insurgency raging in cheeni hinterlands - one that cannot be extinguished by vastly superior PLA guns + population relocation + ethnic cleansing methods - is rather unlikely. Again, Jai ho, hai hu and all that.

Published on Oct 01, 2010
Editorial
Is Obama ready for a stare-down with China?: Christian Science Monitor

Obama’s national security strategy, however, is to primarily focus on rebuilding the US. Indeed, in September, when China protested about a planned military exercise in the Yellow Sea with a US aircraft carrier, the US backed down rather than risk Chinese anger. And Obama didn’t do much to persuade Beijing that its ally, North Korea, was guilty of sinking a South Korean naval ship last March, killing 46 sailors.

In July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did take a legal stand against China’s bold claims to a set of disputed islands in the South China Sea, saying the claims must be resolved with multilateral diplomacy. But the US hasn’t done much about that since then.

President Clinton was tested by China in 1996 after it lobbed missiles near Taiwan. He sent two aircraft carriers into the area in a show of defense for the island nation, which China claims as its own.

But these days China sees the US as weak. The American economy is stagnant. Many of the top Obama officials, such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, are leaving the administration. The president wants major cuts in the Pentagon. US forces began to leave Iraq this year, and Obama plans to start a US retreat from Afghanistan next year.

Since 2009, China has become more assertive in Asia. It recently told its neighbors that they are “small countries” while China is a “large country” – and that they should not expect an equal relationship.

This bluntness only raised fears of confrontation, especially as China expands it naval reach. Japan now wonders if it can count on the US in a crisis. It is considering a boost in its military spending. Over the past decade, Japan’s defense budget has declined about 5 percent – while China’s spending on its forces has soared.

But until China sees its role as a benign benefactor in Asia, a US president should be ready to check China if it tries to strong-arm its neighbors in an imperialist way or hold them hostage to threats.

If other Asian nations can’t look to the US for backup, they would be well advised to start looking more to themselves.

The other Asian nations should get together and build the Asian Security Alliance to contain China.

Hari Seldon ji,

Thanks for your response.

We need to analyze how far the Chinese hyper-nationalists can steer the Chinese boat off-course and what could be the effects of that - on PRC's internal security, security of PRC's various neighbors, and PRC's economy.

Here are some facts on China and Small Arms.

China — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law: Gun Policy

It says: "The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in China is 40,000,000, of which 680,000 are registered"

So I say, we should not discount the potential for a new revolution in PRC just yet.

The mood in US.

Published on Oct 01, 2010
A strategic opening in Asia: Kansas City Star

Recently, Washington and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations signed a joint declaration affirming the importance of unimpeded commerce and freedom of navigation — phrases that Beijing views as red-flag words.

The increasing concern about Chinese intentions provides the U.S. with an opportunity to buttress ties to its Asian allies and other powers, especially India.

""The assertion that "All nations are some form of coercion""

That's a very cynical and false way of looking at reality, and it's usually, not always, expressed by propagandists or apologists of the more repressive regimes. By this philosophy, Denmark and North Korea are equally coercive, and India and Saudi Arabia are equals. I refuse to accept such a crude, cynical outlook of life.

Published Oct 01, 2010
By Jens Kastner and Wang Jyh-Perng
Taiwanese cool to China's overtures: Asia Times Online

A recent survey by the United Daily News, one of Taiwan's major newspapers, which intriguingly is strongly pro-KMT and supports the incorporation of Taiwan within China, somewhat rocked the boat. It seems the impression the Taiwanese have about China's one-party government isn't overly positive.

The majority of respondents also chose attributes such as "annoyingly determined", "selfish", "upstart", "being only after personal profit" and even "generally uncivilized" to describe Chinese civilians. Surely this wasn't what the governments in Beijing or in Taipei had expected after two years of warming cross-strait ties and social and cultural exchanges.

The survey's most striking finding, however, was how the Taiwanese regard the prospect of eventual unification. In 2000, 12% wanted a quick declaration of Taiwanese independence, last month it was 16%. Ten years ago, 32% of respondents spoke out in favor of maintaining the current status quo "eternally", now it's 51%. The percentage of Taiwanese that wanted to keep the status quo and unify in the distant future dropped from 20% to 9%.

RajeshA wrote:Published Oct 01, 2010
By Jens Kastner and Wang Jyh-Perng
Taiwanese cool to China's overtures: Asia Times Online

A recent survey by the United Daily News, one of Taiwan's major newspapers, which intriguingly is strongly pro-KMT and supports the incorporation of Taiwan within China, somewhat rocked the boat. It seems the impression the Taiwanese have about China's one-party government isn't overly positive.

The majority of respondents also chose attributes such as "annoyingly determined", "selfish", "upstart", "being only after personal profit" and even "generally uncivilized" to describe Chinese civilians. Surely this wasn't what the governments in Beijing or in Taipei had expected after two years of warming cross-strait ties and social and cultural exchanges.

The survey's most striking finding, however, was how the Taiwanese regard the prospect of eventual unification. In 2000, 12% wanted a quick declaration of Taiwanese independence, last month it was 16%. Ten years ago, 32% of respondents spoke out in favor of maintaining the current status quo "eternally", now it's 51%. The percentage of Taiwanese that wanted to keep the status quo and unify in the distant future dropped from 20% to 9%.

RajeshA-ji: I posted this on this thread two days back, but these figures are worth reiteratiing and re-visiting. Also worth repetition is the urgent need for India to help the anti-KMT side of politics in the upcoming elections. China is busily engineering the outcome it wants to see - we should not sit back...

Arihant wrote:RajeshA-ji: I posted this on this thread two days back, but these figures are worth reiteratiing and re-visiting. Also worth repetition is the urgent need for India to help the anti-KMT side of politics in the upcoming elections. China is busily engineering the outcome it wants to see - we should not sit back...

Sorry, I may have missed the article.

Arihant ji,

I understand the need, however I am a bit at a loss on ideas, how India can do it. At the most, India can host President Ma or open some improve on diplomatic relations. But should it at all have any impression on the Taiwanese people, it is KMT, the ruling party that would cash in on it, and not DPP.

Published on Oct 02, 2010
By Harumi Ozawa
Japan nationalists rally against PM, China: AFP

TOKYO — Nationalist groups rallied in Japan on Saturday against the country's "diplomatic defeat" to China in a maritime dispute, amid growing Russian pressure over another simmering territorial row.
Japanese national flags fluttered in Tokyo's Yoyogi park where organisers said some 1,500 people had gathered, with many holding banners reading: "Never tolerate weak Kan government defeated to Chinese threats".
The rally was organised by a nationalist network chaired by former air force chief Toshio Tamogami, who was fired in October 2008 for penning an essay calling for the nation to shed elements of its post-World War II pacifism.

"Japan became numb because the peaceful time lasted too long," said Hiromitsu Yanashima, 31, hoisting a rising-sun flag. "We need to realise that China is thrusting a knife point at us."

Arihant wrote:
The majority of respondents also chose attributes such as "annoyingly determined", "selfish", "upstart", "being only after personal profit" and even "generally uncivilized" to describe Chinese civilians. Surely this wasn't what the governments in Beijing or in Taipei had expected after two years of warming cross-strait ties and social and cultural exchanges.

Does it show few posters in BRF. "generally uncivilized" is quite familiar for being rude.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... a2dd13.341
China calls on Japan to 'maintain relations'

BEIJING — China has called on Japan to "maintain the full spectrum of relations" between the two nations amid a damaging territorial row that has rumbled on for more than three weeks."China attaches great importance to its relations with Japan. We hope Japan will work with China to maintain the full spectrum of bilateral relations," said Ma Zhaoxu, the chief spokesman for the ministry of foreign affairs.
The statement came after Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan called on China to behave as a "responsible member of the international community" as the two sides work through their worst spat in several years, centred on a disputed island chain.

In what is perhaps the most conciliatory statement to come from Beijing since the standoff began with the September 8 arrest of a Chinese trawlerman, Ma nevertheless reiterated China's claim to the islands in comments posted on the foreign affairs ministry website.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the ... with-China
Is Obama ready for a stare-down with China

Last month, China bared its fangs at America’s chief Asian ally, Japan. Beijing appeared to precipitate a crisis with its weak neighbor when the captain of a Chinese fishing boat deliberately rammed two Japanese Coast Guard vessels near the Senkaku Islands.For more than a century, Japan has had clear legal control of those rocky, uninhabited islands near Okinawa. But that has not stopped China from recently seeking ownership of them for offshore oil or to show everyone – especially the US Navy – who’s the new boss in Asian waters.he United States praised Tokyo’s decision as a diplomatic necessity – but not before quietly stating that the defense treaty with Japan would require the US military to defend the islands if China took them by force.The crisis still lingers. China and Japan are demanding apologies. And Tokyo is considering whether to station its regular troops near the Senkaku Islands. The incident is thus a wake-up call for Mr. Obama to prepare for China again flexing its muscles in a dangerous way.Obama’s national security strategy, however, is to primarily focus on rebuilding the US. Indeed, in September, when China protested about a planned military exercise in the Yellow Sea with a US aircraft carrier, the US backed down rather than risk Chinese anger. And Obama didn’t do much to persuade Beijing that its ally, North Korea, was guilty of sinking a South Korean naval ship last March, killing 46 sailors.In July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did take a legal stand against China’s bold claims to a set of disputed islands in the South China Sea, saying the claims must be resolved with multilateral diplomacy. But the US hasn’t done much about that since then.President Clinton was tested by China in 1996 after it lobbed missiles near Taiwan. He sent two aircraft carriers into the area in a show of defense for the island nation, which China claims as its own.But these days China sees the US as weak. The American economy is stagnant. Many of the top Obama officials, such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, are leaving the administration. The president wants major cuts in the Pentagon. US forces began to leave Iraq this year, and Obama plans to start a US retreat from Afghanistan next year.Since 2009, China has become more assertive in Asia. It recently told its neighbors that they are “small countries” while China is a “large country” – and that they should not expect an equal relationship.This bluntness only raised fears of confrontation, especially as China expands it naval reach. Japan now wonders if it can count on the US in a crisis. It is considering a boost in its military spending. Over the past decade, Japan’s defense budget has declined about 5 percent – while China’s spending on its forces has soared.
Obama can help Japan by encouraging it to raise its military spending and invest in more defensive weapons. Such US advice is often needed to overcome decades of Japanese reluctance to become a military power again.Next month, Japan will host a summit of Asian and Pacific countries. This will provide an opportunity for Obama to make clear where the US stands on China’s coercive actions and his own readiness to respond to a crisis in the region.

Published on Oct 02, 2010
By Micheal Klare
This expansion has not gone unnoticed in Washington: Independent

In Africa it's another story. China's quest to control resources is often followed up with military ties. This poses a challenge to the US, which has responded by stepping up its own military presence. Africom (the US African Command) was established in 2007, and though its head does not say so, people in Washington say it is a response to China.

RajeshA wrote:Published on Oct 01, 2010
Editorial
Is Obama ready for a stare-down with China?: Christian Science Monitor

But these days China sees the US as weak. The American economy is stagnant. Many of the top Obama officials, such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, are leaving the administration. The president wants major cuts in the Pentagon. US forces began to leave Iraq this year, and Obama plans to start a US retreat from Afghanistan next year.

Have you noticed this, China makes its moves based on its intuitive judgement about the leaders of the other countries. Obama is seen as "weak", hence US is weak. India has "two power centers", our PM is "soft spoken", hence India is "weak". This is typical gang thinking. In turf war, gangs would judge other gangs based on the personality of the leaders. When a rival gang leader is seen as "weak", the other gang would immediately swoop in, take out the leader and fill the vacuum. I think China is following the same pattern. It could be because its creme de la creme of their leadership earned their way by winning all the neighbourhood turf wars. Despite their vaunted "meritocracy", I think those who really call the shots and frame the policies are the ones from turf wars, not the ones who formally studied international affairs/foreign policy/strategy etc.

They dont see the "organization" behind the leaders. They saw JLN as "weak" and attacked us in '62. They did not understand the fallout. We dropped our Gandhian fairtale'ism (no disrespect to Mahatma ji on his birthday ); JLN's vacuum was filled by a much stronger leader; India became much more stronger militarily. Same pattern is repeating now - they dissed our PM visiting Ar.P - a typical gang "taunt", without understanding the fallout (building up the border infrastructure, activation of air bases in the border, raising new divisions etc.).

What it means is that China is really "short term" in its geopolitics/international affairs despite all the hype.