Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Chandragupta » 10 May 2018 23:15

Katare wrote:
nam wrote:
If the self appointed expert thinks, this is the case, then reading the remaining part of the article is waste of time.


Are you saying that the boalded part is incorrect and China does not have upper hand on boarder?


They do not. We outnumber them around 10:1 (iirc, could be wrong but nonetheless, we do heavily outnumber them) and their airfields in Tibet do not allow their fighters to go to air with a payload worth talking about.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1128
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby ArjunPandit » 11 May 2018 00:03

^^one question is their refuelling capability, they have good numbers and can take off from eastern airbases with refuelling, but then the sorties would be very long, and against a less fatigued and well trained opponent as IAF, they will have tough time.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1092
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby nam » 11 May 2018 02:09

Katare wrote:
nam wrote:
If the self appointed expert thinks, this is the case, then reading the remaining part of the article is waste of time.


Are you saying that the bolded part is incorrect and China does not have upper hand on the border?

I think it is well known that India is at huge disadvantage so it is trying to catch up with raising a new corp, ITBP battalians, building link roads/rails and activating old ALDs.

Overall we are not at disadvantage. We are improving lateral line of communication, to allow us move troops faster across mountains.

Chinese realised in 62 itself, it cannot invade through Himalayas.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2151
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Katare » 11 May 2018 06:42

Chandragupta wrote:
Katare wrote:

Are you saying that the boalded part is incorrect and China does not have upper hand on boarder?


They do not. We outnumber them around 10:1 (iirc, could be wrong but nonetheless, we do heavily outnumber them) and their airfields in Tibet do not allow their fighters to go to air with a payload worth talking about.


Wow! We outnumber them 10:1? What have we become now ? Pakistani?

What is your source for this. IA had to literally go to roof tops to get UPA’s attention when China had built capacity to mibilize 30 divisions against it at eastern boarder. Which is backed with the highways and rail network.

We do have advantage and very strategic one in IAF’s ability to fly from altitudes with better payloads and range.

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9205
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Hari Seldon » 11 May 2018 07:31

IMHO, our big advantage is that our supply lines are rather short and that we have densely populated regions just south of the Himal.

Hence, the PLA will be forced to fight its way inch by inch into our land whereas their side is mostly empty land with infra standing out waiting to be taken out with precision strikes.

Also, once we march in (or should I say, 'roll in') we effectively cut off PLA troops in any portion to the west of where we have rolled in. Only.

JMTPs and all that. Standard disclaimers hold. Only.

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Chandragupta » 11 May 2018 10:46

Katare wrote:
Chandragupta wrote:
They do not. We outnumber them around 10:1 (iirc, could be wrong but nonetheless, we do heavily outnumber them) and their airfields in Tibet do not allow their fighters to go to air with a payload worth talking about.


Wow! We outnumber them 10:1? What have we become now ? Pakistani?

What is your source for this. IA had to literally go to roof tops to get UPA’s attention when China had built capacity to mibilize 30 divisions against it at eastern boarder. Which is backed with the highways and rail network.

We do have advantage and very strategic one in IAF’s ability to fly from altitudes with better payloads and range.


viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6863&p=2209672&hilit=Outnumber#p2209672

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... ose-border

They talk about a 15:1 / 20:1 ratio.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10266
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby pankajs » 11 May 2018 14:40

People's Daily,China Verified account @PDChina

Chinese Premier #LiKeqiang met with Japanese Emperor Akihito in Tokyo on Thursday. When meeting with Akihito, Li said his visit aims to review the spirit of the treaty with Japan and bring bilateral ties back to the normal track and achieve new progres.
Richard McGregor @mcgregorrichard
Richard McGregor Retweeted People's Daily,China

Further evidence of Beijing's full court press on improving ties with Japan. Next up, a Xi and Abe summit.

https://twitter.com/ananthkrishnan/stat ... 6304011267
Ananth Krishnan Verified account @ananthkrishnan
Ananth Krishnan Retweeted Richard McGregor

Note that this coincides with the India-China thaw as well (which is why observers who see the Wuhan summit as being entirely India-driven are completely missing the point)

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7610&start=1520#p2270731
pankajs wrote:The latest China/Japan news is bery very interesting. I will attempt to connect the dots that I forgot to do in my last post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China meets with India and is planning to meet Japan soon to "try to mend fences". This latest bit of news on Japan opens up new speculative possibilities.

One can easily observe the following.
1. India and Japan are the flanks to China IF China is forced to take on America head-to-head.
2. India and Japan are the flanks to the American core in the quad. Australia is a distant tail.

With the above in mind, it might even be argued that China, in preparation of a coming confrontation with America on trade or otherwise, is trying to secure its flanks by "making peace/try to mend fences" with India/Japan in quick succession, even if this is a tactical move. Thus the Wuhan initiative seems to be driven more by China's fear/desire than India's.

But what to do ... some Indian analyst still cry "Modi wilting". That is the result when we allow hormones a free run while sidelining logic.

a. When a Chinese leader travels to an adversaries place for talk it is a master stroke where as when an Indian leader does the same it is considered a sellout.
b. When a Chinese leader whispers sweet nothings to his host it is a master stroke where as when an Indian leader does the same it is considered a sellout.

God save us all from such analyst and their hormone driven analysis.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10266
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby pankajs » 11 May 2018 17:10

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3952&p=2271843#p2271843
https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/campaigning-in-nepal/
Campaigning in Nepal

India’s bureaucracy and politicians often work themselves into a frenzy about China, believing the paranoia they themselves leak to the national media. They then export that insecurity to the neighbourhood. PM Oli understood this and played the ‘China Card’ to the hilt during the blockade, making a big deal out of the few token tankers of petroleum China donated, and signing a trade and transit deal amidst much fanfare. China’s help was actually just symbolic, and Oli hasn’t followed up on it in his current tenure.

Previously ..
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7610&start=1560#p2271270
pankajs wrote:But folks create their own scenario in their mind and then get scared of this *self-created* scenario. Experts are as prone to this disease as the layman. There is NO fix for such a malady.

If you read the Nepalese editorial carefully, it is precisely this mental defect that allows our neighbour to play the "China card". Once we stop this automatic orgasmic self hate/loathing/lack of confidence and start looking at the situation based on facts and logic based analysis, the card will become useless.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 11 May 2018 17:17

The fishing port that may become a $10 billion Chinese debt bomb - Bloomberg
The town of Kyaukpyu, nestled around a small fishing port on the Bay of Bengal, has the air of a place expecting to get rich soon.

In the seaside market, stalls of seafood unloaded from wooden fishing boats floating in the rubbish-strewn harbor have been joined by stacks of Chinese-made toys and smartphones. Nearby, cattle graze between building sites as high-rise offices and hotels replace weather-stained bungalows. Fine-dining rooftop restaurants and a golf course underline the sense of transition.

Much of the development, and a jump in land prices, are anticipating a gigantic prize for this remote Myanmar town of 50,000 people: $10 billion to build a deep-sea port and industrial zone, financed by China. The investment plan -- seven times the cost of Chinese-built ports in Sri Lanka and Cameroon -- has put Kyaukpyu at the center of a debate in Myanmar and across Asia as to who really benefits from China’s grand Belt and Road strategy.

“The real danger of the port is that its extreme expense could lead the Myanmar government to take out an unsustainable level of debt,” said Greg Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “That, in combination with other current and future projects in Myanmar, could in the coming years lead to a debt trap.”

Those concerns have stalled development since the previous military government chose China’s CITIC Group to build the port three years ago. CITIC, China’s first state-owned investment corporation, has proposed taking a 70 percent stake in the project, with the remainder split between the Myanmar government and a consortium of local firms. The Chinese company would run the zone for up to 75 years and would finance Myanmar’s stake.

“We keep hearing it will be built since 2015, but nothing has happened so far,” said Shwe Shwe Maung, 34, the head of KaBalan, a village of 460 households in the area marked for the economic zone. “We don’t know exactly what the impact will be, but we’re all hoping that it will bring jobs.”

Some senior government officials are concerned that a nation with a smaller economy than the Dominican Republic may struggle to service and repay the billions of dollars Myanmar would need to borrow for the project.

The amount of interest is quite substantial, and not like the loans we got from the Japanese government -- the loans from China are much more expensive,” said Soe Win, a member of the ruling National League for Democracy’s central economic committee and a candidate to become Myanmar’s next central bank governor. He declined to give details of the proposed loan.

The Japan International Cooperation Agency is helping finance a $3.28 billion economic zone at Thilawa port, south of Yangon. The Thilawa development has raised further questions about Myanmar’s need for such a large facility in Kyaukpyu (pronounced CHOW-pew) or whether it would simply be a conduit for China, run by Chinese companies.

“Is this deep-sea port being made to benefit Myanmar?” said Ken Tun, founder and chief executive of Myanmar’s Parami Energy, the only local firm to be shortlisted for the development. “If we have a deep sea port, but it’s not controlled by Myanmar, that’s a problem.”

One major concern for some members of the government is what happened in Sri Lanka. In 2008, a joint venture with China began building a deep-water port at Hambantota. When Sri Lanka couldn’t repay the loan for the project, it ended up ceding the port to China for 99 years last year in exchange for debt relief. “China is trying to influence political events in Myanmar in many ways,” Soe Win said in an interview. “But what we are afraid of is that we will end up like Sri Lanka.”

Lessons for Leaders Eying China’s Belt-and-Road Billions


Toe Aung Myint, permanent secretary of the Myanmar Ministry of Commerce, which oversees the project management committee, rejects the suggestion that the port would entail too much debt, saying construction would happen in stages.

“Myanmar and Sri Lanka are not the same,” Aung Myint said in an interview. “Only based on the success of the first phase, we will do another phase.”

CITIC directed questions regarding the port to the Myanmar government. “We are unable to disclose information regarding the negotiation to the public,” Zhang Yue, the head of CITIC Myanmar, said in an email.

Soe Win isn’t the only one worried about the long-term plans for Kyaukpyu. Located on the eastern edge of the Bay of Bengal, the town is almost directly opposite INS Varsha, where the Indian navy will base its new fleet of nuclear submarines.

A Myanmar government official familiar with China’s plans for Kyaukpyu said military attaches from the U.S., Australia and countries in Southeast Asia have all expressed concern that China wants to build a port that has strategic as well as economic advantages.


“China needs some sort of access or staging facilities in several different places in the Indian Ocean,” said David Brewster, a senior fellow at Australia’s National Security College and an expert on India-China maritime security. “Myanmar would be a good place to have a naval base.”

Myanmar’s government may have little alternative to a Chinese loan if it wants to build the port. The political outrage sparked in the U.S. and Europe over the treatment of the Rohingya minority has left it with few allies among developed nations.

Kyaukpyu, 400 kilometers (250 miles) north-west of the capital, Yangon, is in Rakhine state, where more than 600,000 Rohingya have been driven from their homes into neighboring Bangladesh since last August, in what the United Nations’ top human rights official has called “ethnic cleansing.” While most of the clashes happened further north, the conflict rattled investors, prompting China to send a group of diplomats to Rakhine in December.

“They wanted to learn more about the security of their investments,”said Aung Dung, 71, chairman of the Kyaukpyu branch of the NLD, who met the delegation. “The Chinese have quite a lot going on down here.”

Pipeline Links

The town already has oil and gas loading terminals, built since 2013, that feed pipelines transporting the fuel directly to Yunnan province in Western China. A rail link is planned to connect the container port.

“Kyaukpyu is definitely growing,”
Yan Myo Aung, 54, chairman of Kyaukpyu branch of the Arakan National Party, whose family operates a number of local retail businesses. “We hope that the Special Economic Zone will add to that.”

Shop owner Saw Maung Nu is one of many local residents who are anticipating a windfall.

“I built this house and shop here two years ago because of the development,” said Saw, 58, a father of eight, in Thaing Shaung, a smattering of houses outside Kyaukpyu in the center of the proposed industrial zone. “I thought all the people coming to work here might need to buy things.”

He said land prices have risen from $20,000 an acre to $50,000 an acre and he’s hoping the government will pay the market rate to buy him out.

Even without the potential military benefits of Kyaukpyu, the port’s commercial advantages make it a key part of China’s maritime Belt and Road strategy.

CITIC says the terminal would have an annual capacity for 4.9 million containers, more than the current throughput of Brazil’s biggest container terminal, as well as loading oil for the pipeline. With the rail link, it would give exporters in Yunnan a short-cut to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the disputed waters in the South China Sea and the congested Straits of Malacca.

“Yunnan is very important for them, it’s landlocked,” said Soe Win. “We will be happy if they use their Kyaukpyu port as a commercial port. But if they would like to turn it into a kind of military base, then we’ll be very, very sad.”

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17107
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby chetak » 11 May 2018 17:37

Chandragupta wrote:
Peregrine wrote:The reality check that brought Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping together

Then Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, even went to the extent of supporting China’s membership of the United Nations Security Council at India’s expense, since it is believed to have been offered a permanent seat as well by the US and the Soviet Union.


The biggest traitor and the biggest idiot of Independent India made PM for 17 years by British dalal Gandhi. Aak thoo. What a cursed civilization we are to deserve such traitors.


We did not deserve him.

He was thrust upon India by the machinations of the britshits via gandhi. This man was always a supporter of the british. The ease with which they handled nehru and "guided" him would never have been possible with Patel

http://www.thenorthlines.com/gandhi-opted-nehru-not-sardar-patel-pm/

The entire rank and file of the Congress looked at Sardar Patel as the most deserving candidate to be sworn in as independent India’s first Prime Minister, given his proven track record of being an able administrator and a no-nonsense politician. Then what really went wrong? To find out the answer, we need to rewind back to 1946.

By 1946, it had become quite clear that India’s independence was only a matter of time now. The Second World War had come to an end and the British rulers had started thinking in terms of transferring power to Indians.

An interim government was to be formed which was to be headed by the Congress president as Congress had won the maximum number of seats in the 1946 elections. All of a sudden, the post of Congress president became very crucial as it was this very person who was going to become the first Prime Minister of independent India.

At that time, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was the president of Congress party. In fact, he was the president for the last six years as elections could not be held for the Congress president’s post since 1940 due to Quit India movement, the Second World War and the fact that most of the leaders were behind bars.

Azad was also interested in fighting and winning election for the Congress president’s post as he, too, had ambitions to become the PM, but he was told in no uncertain terms by Mahatma Gandhi that he does not approve of a second term for a sitting Congress president and Azad had to fall in line ,albeit reluctantly. Not only this, Gandhi made it very clear to everybody that Nehru was his preferred choice for the Congress president’s position.

The last date for the nominations for the post of the President of Congress, and thereby the first Prime Minister of India, was April 29, 1946.

And the nominations were to be made by 15 state/regional Congress committees. Despite Gandhi’s well-known preference for Nehru as Congress president, not a single Congress committee nominated Nehru’s name.

On the contrary, 12 out of 15 Congress committees nominated Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. The remaining three Congress committees did not nominate any body’s name. Obviously, the overwhelming majority was in favour of Sardar Patel.

It was a challenge to Mahatma Gandhi as well. He instructed Acharya J B kriplani to get some proposers for Nehru from the Congress Working Committee (CWC) members despite knowing fully well that only Pradesh Congress Committees were authorized to nominate the president.

In deference to Gandhi’s wish, Kripalani convinced a few CWC members to propose Nehru’s name for party president.

It’s not that Gandhi was not aware of the immorality of this exercise. He had fully realized that what he was trying to bring about was wrong and totally unfair.

In fact, he tried to make Nehru understand the reality. He conveyed to Nehru that no PCC has nominated his name and that only a few CWC members have nominated him. A shell-shocked Nehru was defiant and made it clear that he will not play second fiddle to any body.

A disappointed Gandhi gave into Nehru’s obduracy and asked Sardar Patel to withdraw his name. Sardar Patel had immense respect for Gandhi and he withdrew his candidature without wasting any time. And it paved the way for the coronation of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as India’s first Prime Minister.

But why did Gandhi overlook the overwhelming support for Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel? Why was he so enamoured with Nehru?

When Dr Rajendra Prasad heard of Sardar Patel’s withdrawal of nomination, he was disappointed and remarked that Gandhi had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant in favour of the ‘glamorous Nehru’.

Was it the ‘glamour’ and ‘sophistication’ of Nehru that floored Gandhi so much that he did not hesitate in doing a grave injustice to Patel?

The answer to this question is not that simple. But a closer analysis of Gandhi’s approach towards Patel and Nehru throws light over a few facts that can decipher the mystery.

There is no denying the fact that Gandhi had a ‘soft corner’ for Nehru since the beginning and he had preferred Nehru over Sardar Patel at least twice before 1946 for the post of Congress president. It happened in 1929 as well as in 1937.

Gandhi was always impressed with the modern outlook of Nehru. In comparison to Nehru, Sardar Patel was a little orthodox and Gandhi thought India needed a person who was modern in his approach.

But more than anything, Gandhi always knew that Sardar Patel would never defy him. He was not so convinced about Nehru. Gandhi’s apprehensions came true when Nehru made it clear to him that he was not willing to play second fiddle to anybody.

Perhaps, Gandhi wanted both Nehru and Patel to provide leadership to the country. He used his veto power in favour of Nehru because he feared Nehru could cause problems in the way of India’s independence if he was not given the chance to become Prime Minister.

Some analysts have also claimed that Nehru threatened to split the Congress in case he was not made Prime Minister.

According to these analysts, Nehru coerced Gandhi into supporting him by saying that if he split the Congress, the entire independence plan would go awry as the British would get an excuse in delaying independence by raising the question as to who should be handed over the reins of power, Congress with Nehru or Congress minus Nehru.

Gandhi must have thought that it would be safe to ask Sardar Patel for making the sacrifice than to reason with a power-smitten Nehru. In fact, he had commented that Nehru had gone power-mad.

So, we can conclude that Gandhi chose Nehru over Patel because of two main reasons:
Gandhi believed a foreign educated Nehru with modern thoughts had an edge over Patel who, according to him, was orthodox in his thoughts.

Gandhi feared Nehru would revolt in case he was denied PM’s post and that would give the British an excuse to delay transfer of power. On the other hand, he was fully convinced of Sardar Patel’s loyalty. He knew Sardar Patel was a true patriot and would never play a spoilsport.

But Gandhi’s decision proved too costly for the nation.

First of all, Gandhi introduced the concept of forced decisions by the so-called ‘high-commands’ that usually means overruling state units. This practice, now being followed across the political spectrum, has negated the very concept of inner party democracy. Nehru’s follies on Kashmir and China proved beyond doubt the fact that Gandhi committed a mistake in backing Nehru by showing utter disregard to overwhelming support from the majority of PCCs for Sardar Patel.

Even two known critics of Sardar Patel conceded the point that Gandhi’s decision to chose Nehru over Patel was erroneous.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad confessed in his autobiography that was published posthumously in 1959, “It was a mistake on my part that I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different.”

Similarly, C Rajgopalachary who blamed Sardar Patel for depriving him of the first presidentship of independent India, wrote, “Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two… A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.”

But questions can be raised over Sardar Patel’s surrender as well.

Who was he more loyal to? To an individual, to an organization or to his motherland? When he was convinced that Nehru was not fit enough to give the much-needed guidance that a nascent country so desperately wanted, why did he not object even once to the foisting of Nehru as India’s first Prime Minister?

History has proved it beyond doubt that had Patel been the PM in place of Nehru, the country would not have faced the humiliation of 1962 war.

Days before his death, Patel had written a letter to Nehru warning him about China’s nefarious designs but Nehru didn’t pay any attention to that letter. Even Kashmir would not have become a thorn in the flesh for India, had Patel and not Nehru been the first prime minister of India.


Sardar Patel :

Interesting Extracts

Part-I of Chapter-12 from

Foundations of Misery

__________________________________________________________________________

If Only Sardar Patel was Prime Minister
“While I usually came back from meeting Gandhiji elated and inspired but always a bit sceptical, and from talks with Jawaharlal fired with emotional zeal but often confused and unconvinced, meetings with Vallabhbhai were a joy from which I returned with renewed confidence in the future of our country. I have often thought that if fate had decreed that he, instead of Jawaharlal, would be younger of the two, India would have followed a very different path and would be in better economic shape than it is today.”

– JRD Tata

~ ~ ~

“Gandhi’s death reunited Nehru and Patel. Their reconciliation not only saved Congress and India’s central government from collapse, but it kept Nehru in power. Without the Sardar’s strength and support Nehru might have broken down or been forced out of high office. Vallabhbhai ran India’s administration for the next two years [before his death] while Nehru indulged mostly in foreign affairs and high Himalayan adventures.”

“The Sardar, as Congress’s strongman was called, was determined to stay and solve whatever problems remained, rather than running away from them. He had long viewed Nehru as a weak sister and often wondered why Gandhi thought so highly of him.”

– Stanley Wolpert, Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny

~ ~ ~

“The Sardar [Patel] always reminded me of the pictures of Roman emperors in history books. There was something rock-like in his appearance and demeanour...The Sardar’s reading of the pulse of India was almost uncanny in its accuracy.”

– Roy Bucher, the Army Chief

~ ~ ~

“Returning from London on the night of May 30, Mountbatten, in his own words, ‘sent V.P.Menon to see Patel to obtain his agreement to six months joint control [with Pakistan] of Calcutta’, which is what Jinnah had been pressing for. The Viceroy recorded Patel’s reply: ‘Not even for six hours!’ Earlier...Jinnah had demanded an 800-mile ‘corridor’ to link West and East Pakistan. Patel called the claim ‘such fantastic nonsense as not to be taken seriously’. It died a quick and unremembered death.”

– Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel–A Life



(Unlike Nehru, Sardar Patel was very firm in his dealings.)

~ ~ ~

“[Humayun] Kabir [translator and editor of Maulana Azad's autobiography] believed that Azad had come to realize after seeing Nehru’s functioning that Patel should have been India’s prime minister and Nehru the president of India. Coming as it did from an inveterate opponent of Patel, it was a revelation...A year earlier, Rajgopalachari had said the same thing...”

– Kuldip Nayar, Beyond the Lines

~ ~ ~

“...[then] it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President [of Congress in 1946—and hence PM] ...I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life...My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself, I did not support Sardar Patel.”

– Maulana Azad in his autobiography, India Wins Freedom

~ ~ ~

“Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two.”

– C Rajagopalachari ( Rajaji), who had then been pro-Nehru and anti-Patel, two decades after the death of Patel.

~ ~ ~

Kripalani had once commented: “When we are faced with thorny problems, and Gandhi’s advice is not available, we consider Sardar Patel as our leader.”

~ ~ ~

“You know, I never go to Nehru to seek advice or guidance. I take a decision and just present it to him as a fait accompli. Nehru’s mind is too complex to wrestle with the intricacies of a problem. Those who go to him for advice rarely get a lead—and that only serves to delay matters...Nehru does not understand economics, and is lead by the nose by ‘professors’ and ‘experts’ who pander to his whims and fancies...We should have absorbed Kashmir for good and all...I do not know where we are going. The country needs a man like Patel.”

– Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, a close friend and a confidant of Nehru, quoted in Durga Das’s India from Curzon to Nehru & After



Undemocratic Anointment
Nehru’s own election as the president of Congress in 1946, that led to his becoming India's first prime minister upon independence, was undemocratic. In 1946, Azad’s successor as the Congress President was to be chosen. The choice was critical then because whoever became the Congress President would also have become the head of the Interim Government and the first prime minister of independent India. This was the reason Azad had also desired his own re-election. Sardar Patel, Acharya Kripalani and Nehru were in the race. 12 of the 19 PCCs (Pradesh Congress Committees) had sent in the name of Sardar Patel for the post, and the remaining nominated Kripalani, and additionally Rajendra Prasad. However, none recommended Nehru for the post! As such, Nehru should have been totally out of the race, and Sardar Patel should have been the clear, unambiguous choice.

Reportedly, Gandhi did tell Nehru that no one had nominated him, expecting him to go by the majority; but, Nehru let it be understood that he would not play second fiddle to anybody. A disappointed Gandhi apparently gave into Nehru's obduracy and prevailed upon Sardar Patel and Kripalani to step down in favour of Nehru. This is how Nehru became the Congress President, and thereafter the head of the Interim Government, and later the first PM. If Nehru were genuinely a democrat, he should have refused the position and prevailed upon Gandhi to go by the wishes of the overwhelming majority.

Somebody asked Gandhi why he did so. Reportedly, Gandhi’s reason was that while Nehru would not work under Sardar Patel, he knew that in the national interest he could persuade Sardar Patel to work under Nehru. What Gandhi said amounts to this: that Sardar Patel, even though senior and more experienced, and backed by majority, was patriotic enough to work under Nehru in the national interest, if so prodded by Gandhi; Nehru, junior, less experienced, and not backed by a single PCC, wanted only to become PM, and was not patriotic enough to work under Patel, in the national interest, even if persuaded by Gandhi!

... ... ...

Dr Rajendra Prasad had stated: “Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.” 1946 was not the first time Gandhi had ridden rough shod over Sardar to promote Nehru. It was a case of déjà vu—there was a similar case in the thirties. On account of differences between Nehru and Patel on the issue of socialism, the selection of the Congress president for the next annual session had assumed critical importance. Incidentally, Patel, Rajagopalachari and Rajendra Prasad were opposed to socialism. If only they had led India after Independence, rather than Nehru, India would have been a prosperous first-world country long ago. That time too Patel had a majority backing, but Gandhi intervened to accord another term to Nehru, and persuaded Patel to withdraw in his favour. That was yet another example of the great democrat Nehru getting undemocratically elected—knowing very well what the wish of the majority was.



Integration of the Princely States
“...Whatever may be said about Mountbatten’s tactics or the machinations of Patel, their achievement remains remarkable. Between them, and in less than a year, it may be argued that these two men achieved a larger India, more closely integrated, than had 90 years of British raj, 180 years of the Mughal Empire, or 130 years of Asoka and the Maurya rulers.

“...He [Sardar Patel] was impervious to Mountbatten’s famous charm, describing the new Viceroy as ‘a toy for Jawaharlalji to play with—while we arrange the revolution’...

“...For Patel’s part, he realised immediately that Mountbatten, with his own semi-royal status and personal friendship with many of the princes, was uniquely suited to help India achieve its aim of leaving no state behind.”

– Alex Von Tunzelmann, Indian Summer

~ ~ ~

222 or about 40% of the 562 states, covering an area of about 22,000 square miles, were in just one region in Saurashtra in Gujarat state—Kathiawar. Sardar Patel’s role in consolidating these 222 states was described by Nehru as “a great step forward...one of the most notable in contemporary Indian history...a far-sighted act of statesmanship...”

~ ~ ~

...Thus, with the withdrawal of paramountcy, the Princely States were to become independent... 562 independent States! That would have meant ominous prospects of civil wars, military takeovers, and total chaos—more terrible than what happened during the partition! ...That may well have been the objective of the British. Else, why could they not have so arranged that the Princely States too had to either go to India or to Pakistan depending upon their contiguity and other factors. The Paramountcy could have been inherited by the succeeding dominions. But, British wanted it to lapse, and create difficulties for India. They wanted India to remain divided into as many parts as possible. In fact, Sir Conrad Corfield, the pro-princes and anti-India head of the powerful Political Department of British-India, had lobbied in London and had left no stones unturned to ensure that the “lapse of paramountcy” was incorporated in The Indian Independence Act 1947, so that the Princely States had the third option—that of independence.

However, they had not factored in what Sardar Patel was capable of. Says Leonard Mosley in The Last Days of the British Raj: “Sir Conrad Corfield and other defenders of the Princes were, however, being a little too optimistic. At the very moment that they breathed the heady air of victory something came out of the blue and floored them. The blow came from the clasped hands of those two able political operators, Sardar Patel and VP Menon. When the Congress Party had decided to form a States Ministry they picked Patel as the obvious man to head it. Their mood was belligerent. They despised the Princes and they resented the British for lapsing paramountcy. They hoped and expected that the strong man of the Party would roll up his dhoti and wade in with sound, fury, and effect. Patel was far too wily a negotiator to do such a thing, particularly since he had the measure of Sir Conrad Corfield and admired him as a skilled and dangerous adversary. This was, he decided, no time for flailing fists and loud cries of screaming rage and fury. The blow must be subtle, unexpected, and must leave no unnecessary bruises...”

~ ~ ~

Expansion of India’s geography by about 40% and consolidation of its post-independence stability through the integration of the Princely States demanded great foresight, sharp mind, deep wisdom, high-level diplomacy, sagacity, boldness, guts, readiness to act and timely action—thankfully for India, Sardar Patel answered to that rare combination of qualities and requirements. Nehru just did not have it in him to accomplish all that; he would have flinched from even attempting it; and had he taken the plunge, he would have made a royal mess of it. Like Durga Das writes in India from Curzon to Nehru & After: “VP Menon gave me details of these prolonged talks. Mountbatten was just flattering the old man[Gandhi], he said. He is doing business with Sardar and has Nehru in his pocket. Sardar is playing a deep game. He, in turn, is flattering Mountbatten and using him to net the Princes...”

~ ~ ~

Apart from, "I thought he [Nehru] wanted to make the Maharaja [Hari Singh of J&K] lick his boots..."; Mountbatten had made another observation: "I am glad to say that Nehru has not been put in charge of the new [Princely] States Department, which would have wrecked everything. Patel, who is essentially a realist and very sensible, is going to take it over...Even better news is that VP Menon is to be the Secretary."

~ ~ ~

Durga Das writes: “All were agreed on one thing: While Gandhi was the architect of India’s freedom, Sardar [Patel] was the architect of India’s unity.” And Nehru? That's what we are trying to understand, by focussing on the 1946-1964 period.



Junagadh
Writes C Dasgupta in ‘War and Diplomacy in Kashmir 1947-48’: “In an effort to head him [Sardar Patel] off from this course of action [military action in Junagadh], Mountbatten suggested lodging a complaint to the United Nations against Junagadh’s act of aggression...Patel observed that possession was nine-tenths of the law and he would in no circumstances lower India’s position by going to any court as a plaintiff. The Governor-General asked him whether he was prepared to take the risk of an armed clash in Kathiawar leading to war with Pakistan. The Deputy Prime Minister [Sardar Patel] was unmoved. He said he was ready to take the risk...”

~ ~ ~

Writes V Shankar, private secretary of Sardar Patel, in his book, My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel Vol.1: “...But he [Sardar Patel] had to contend with two important factors, one of them being Lord Mountbatten...Sardar had to be particularly patient because very often Lord Mountbatten succeeded in enlisting Pandit Nehru’s sympathies for his point of view...He was convinced that, in this matter of national importance, police action could not be ruled out in the case of Hyderabad and that the threat of its accession to Pakistan must be removed at all costs. As regards Junagadh he was not prepared for any compromise and finally succeeded in evolving and executing his own plans despite Lord Mountbatten’s counsels against precipitating matters or his suggestion of a plebiscite [under UN auspices] ...He [Sardar] remarked with a twinkle in his eye, ‘Don’t you see we have two U.N. experts—one the Prime Minister [Nehru] and the other Lord Mountbatten—and I have to steer my way between them. However, I have my own idea of plebiscite. You wait and see...’”

~ ~ ~

Sardar planned and executed the Junagadh operation so well that the Nawab fled to Pakistan on 26 October 1947 leaving the state to Shahnawaz Bhutto, who, facing collapse of the administration, invited India on 7 November 1947 to intervene and left for Pakistan on 8 November 1947. The Indian army moved in on 9 November 1947, and Sardar Patel arrived to a grand reception on the Diwali day of 13 November 1947.

A plebiscite was held in Junagadh by India. It was conducted not by the UN, but by an ICS officer, CB Nagarkar, on 20 February 1948, in which 99%—all but 91 persons—voted to join India. Sardar was not gullible like Nehru to allow himself to be made a fool of by letting Mountbatten have his way, refer the matter to the UN—which Mountbatten had suggested for Junagadh and Hyderabad too—and allow domestic matters to be internationalised, like that of J&K, and be exploited by Pakistan and the UK.



Hyderabad
V Shankar writes in My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel Vol.1: “Hyderabad occupied a special position in the British scheme of things and therefore touched a special chord in Lord Mountbatten...The ‘faithful ally’ concept still ruled the attitude of every British of importance...all the other rulers were watching whether the Indian Government would concede to it a position different from the other states...Lastly, on Hyderabad, Pandit Nehru and some others in Delhi were prepared to take a special line; in this Mrs Sarojini Naidu and Miss Padmaja Naidu, both of whom occupied a special position in Pandit Nehru’s esteem, were not without influence...Apart from Lord Mountbatten’s understandable sympathy for the Muslim position in Hyderabad, shared by Pandit Nehru, in anything that concerned Pakistan even indirectly, he was for compromise and conciliation to the maximum extent possible...Sardar [Patel] was aware of the influence which Lord Mountbatten exercised over both Pandit Nehru and Gandhiji; often that influence was decisive...Sardar had made up his mind that Hyderabad must fit into his policy regarding the Indian states...I know how deeply anguished he used to feel at his helplessness in settling the problem with his accustomed swiftness...”

~ ~ ~

Very tactfully, Sardar Patel waited for Mountbatten to first go from India for ever, which he did on 21 June 1948—lest he should interfere in the matter. Patel’s most formidable obstacle lay in Mountbatten and Nehru, who had been converted by Mountbatten to his point of view—not to let Indian Army move into Hyderabad. Had Gandhi been alive, perhaps Nehru-Gandhi combine would not have allowed the action that Sardar took—Gandhi being a pacifist.

Sardar Patel had fixed the zero hour for the Army to move into Hyderabad twice, and twice he had to postpone it under intense political pressure from Nehru and Rajaji. They instead directed VP Menon and HM Patel to draft suitable reply to Nizam on his appeal. While the reply to Nizam was being readied, Sardar Patel summarily announced that the Army had already moved in, and nothing could be done to halt it. This he did after taking the Defence Minister, Baldev Singh, into confidence! Had Sardar Patel not showed such determination and guts, and had he not ignored the tame alternative suggested by Nehru and Rajaji, Hyderabad would have been another Kashmir or Pakistan!

~ ~ ~

In ‘My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel’ writes V Shankar: “...the decision about the Police Action in Hyderabad in which case Sardar [Patel] described the dissent of Rajaji and Pandit Nehru as “the wailing of two widows as to how their departed husband [meaning Gandhiji] would have reacted to the decision involving such a departure from non-violence.”

~ ~ ~

Meanwhile, a fanatical Muslim organisation, Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, headed by one Kasim Razvi had been fomenting trouble. They came to be known as the Razakars. At the instance of Kasim Razvi, Nizam appointed Mir Laik Ali, a Hyderabadi businessman, who had also been a representative of Pakistan at the UN, president of his Executive Council. With this the Hyderabad Government came virtually under Razvi. Razvi later met Sardar and Menon in Delhi to tell that Hyderabad would never surrender its independence, and that Hindus were happy under Nizam; but if India insisted on a plebiscite, it is the sword which would decide the final result. Razvi further told Sardar Patel, “We shall fight and die to the last men,” to which Patel responded, “How can I stop you from committing suicide?”

~ ~ ~

On the use of force by India to settle the Hyderabad issue, V Shankar writes in My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, Vol-1: “The entire staff for the purpose had been alerted and the timing depended on how long it would take for Sardar to overcome the resistance to this course by C Rajagopalachari, who succeeded Lord Mountbatten as Governor General, and by Pandit Nehru, who found in C Rajagopalachari an intellectual support for his non-violent policy towards Hyderabad..” Shankar quotes Sardar's response to a query, "Many have asked me the question what is going to happen to Hyderabad. They forget that when I spoke at Junagadh, I said openly that if Hyderabad did not behave properly, it would have to go the way Junagadh did. The words still stand and I stand by these words.” Shankar further states in Vol-2: “The situation in Hyderabad was progressing towards a climax. Under Sardar's constant pressure, and despite the opposition of Pandit Nehru and Rajaji, the decision was taken to march into Hyderabad and thereby to put an end both to the suspended animation in which the State stood and the atrocities on the local population which had become a matter of daily occurrence.”

In a Cabinet meeting on 8 September 1948, while the States Ministry under Sardar Patel pressed for occupation of Hyderabad to put an end to the chaos there; Nehru strongly opposed the move and was highly critical of the attitude of the States Ministry. However, Sardar Patel prevailed.

~ ~ ~

Sardar Patel’s daughter’s “The Diary of Maniben Patel: 1936-50” states: “About Hyderabad, Bapu [her father, Sardar Patel] said if his counselling had been accepted—the problem would have been long solved...Bapu replied [to Rajaji], ‘...Our viewpoint is different. I don’t want the future generation to curse me that these people when they got an opportunity did not do it and kept this ulcer [Hyderabad princely state] in the heart of India...It is States Ministry’s [which was under Sardar Patel] function [to make Hyderabad state accede to India]. How long are you and Panditji going to bypass the States Ministry and carry on...Bapu told Rajaji that Jawaharlal continued his aberration for an hour and a half in the Cabinet—that we should decide our attitude about Hyderabad. The question will be raised in the UN...Bapu said, ‘I am very clear in my mind—if we have to fight—Nizam is finished. We cannot keep this ulcer in the heart of the union. His dynasty is finished.’ He (Jawaharlal) was very angry/hot on this point.”

~ ~ ~

Writes Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’: “...Reports circulating at the time said that even then Nehru was not in favour of marching troops into Hyderabad lest the matter be taken up by the UN...It is true that Patel chafed at the ‘do-nothing attitude of the Indian government’...”


Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Chandragupta » 11 May 2018 22:57

chetak wrote:<snip>

A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.”


<Snip>


Secularism & Hindu dhimmis - screwing India since time immemorial; and continue to do so.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10266
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby pankajs » 12 May 2018 22:56

https://www.financialexpress.com/infras ... s/1163037/
Indian Railways to build 3 strategic lines along China border; here’s the status of the projects
The railways has set a target of completing by 2019 the final location surveys of three strategic lines along the country’s border with China after the projects received the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) nod in December 2015, officials said today. The railways has received Rs 47.18 crore from the Defence Ministry for the final location survey (FLS) of the 378-km Missamari-Tenga-Tawang line, the 227-km Pasighat-Tezu-Rupai line and the 249-km North Lakhimpur-Bame-Silapathar line after the Cabinet Committee on Security decided to take them up for construction on priority.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10266
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby pankajs » 13 May 2018 12:53

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... vVwzqTRDct
Beijing winning the great South China Sea game

Most worryingly, the deployment of missiles — for the first time — provides China with offensive power projection capabilities, augmenting its existing anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) naval strategy against its primary rival, the United States.

All these developments, coupled with the lack of any concerted or robust response from the U.S. and its allies and partners in the region, point to the inevitable conclusion that the sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea has — irreversibly — become a foregone conclusion. Three compelling reasons justify this assertion.

<snip>

The above three factors — Beijing’s sharpened focus on national security, lack of American resolve to balance China in the SCS, and ASEAN’s prioritization of peace and stability over sovereignty considerations — have contributed to the bleak state of affairs today.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17107
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby chetak » 13 May 2018 14:09

pankajs wrote:https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/05/11/commentary/world-commentary/beijing-winning-great-south-china-sea-game/#.WvVwzqTRDct
Beijing winning the great South China Sea game

Most worryingly, the deployment of missiles — for the first time — provides China with offensive power projection capabilities, augmenting its existing anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) naval strategy against its primary rival, the United States.

All these developments, coupled with the lack of any concerted or robust response from the U.S. and its allies and partners in the region, point to the inevitable conclusion that the sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea has — irreversibly — become a foregone conclusion. Three compelling reasons justify this assertion.

<snip>

The above three factors — Beijing’s sharpened focus on national security, lack of American resolve to balance China in the SCS, and ASEAN’s prioritization of peace and stability over sovereignty considerations — have contributed to the bleak state of affairs today.


One can understand the angst of the japan times. The US has always provided a security umbrella for them and now that the US is of late, focussing more on it's own needs, some sort of cognitive dissonance has overtaken these guys.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 725
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Deans » 13 May 2018 14:17

Katare wrote:Wow! We outnumber them 10:1? What have we become now ? Pakistani?

What is your source for this. IA had to literally go to roof tops to get UPA’s attention when China had built capacity to mibilize 30 divisions against it at eastern boarder. Which is backed with the highways and rail network.

We do have advantage and very strategic one in IAF’s ability to fly from altitudes with better payloads and range.


This has been discussed extensively in another thread. Briefly (looking at a scenario of an PLA attack in Ladakh)

The ORBAT for the PLA in the Western Theatre command can be assessed from this link (collaborated by a similar Chinese source).
https://jamestown.org/program/snapshot- ... r-command/

Getting even this modest force to the LAC would involve extensive preparation and they would face a IA who outnumbers them both in
the East and West and who have had more time to get into position - even with our poor transport links).

Surprisingly, the only PLA formations in the TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region) are 3 brigades in the Eastern Sector, One of these is at Lhasa
and two are opposite Arunachal. In the West, the nearest formation that can threaten our forces in Ladakh, is a mechanised division with its HQ at Hotan, in Xinjiang. While the distance from Hotan to Daulat Beg Oldi might be 200 km as the crow flies, in reality, getting that formation close to the LAC, would involve a road journey of over 700 km along the G219 highway – due to the intervening mountains. This highway is never closer than 100 km from the LAC. To be in a position to attack Daulat Beg Oldi at a point where the G219 highway is closest, involves a further road journey of around 200 km. None of the tracks leading to the DBO area look like being all weather.
As the terrain on the Chinese side is flat and featureless, any movement can be picked up by satellites or Humint and highly vulnerable to interdiction from the air. The `last mile’ distance from the road to the LAC is as difficult to approach from the Chinese side as it is from ours.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby shiv » 13 May 2018 19:41


It's all here - watch 2 minutes from the point linked below
https://youtu.be/UPWq32DP7u8?t=385

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10266
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby pankajs » 14 May 2018 08:26

Too much propaganda on all side. A bit of skepticism is always good. Nonetheless ...

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/a ... 2003693034
New radar to hunt Chinese stealth jets

As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) deploys J-20 stealth fighters in increasing numbers, Taiwan is fielding mobile passive radar systems to defend its airspace against stealth aircraft, a senior Ministry of National Defense official said.

Image
The military’s concept for counter-stealth air defense is comprised of active and passive systems, which would detect, track and lock on to stealth targets at long range, the official said.

The active means would consist of upgraded F-16 warplanes, which have advanced radar systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft, he said, referring to F-16V aircraft and the APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar.

The radar systems would comprise the passive end of the system, the official said.

The mobile units will be remotely linked to active phased array radar systems and “magnify” the radar cross-section of detected objects without emitting radiation, he said.

They are less vulnerable to electronic warfare interference and anti-radiation missile attacks, a fact sheet published by the institute said.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10266
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby pankajs » 14 May 2018 13:13

Chris Buckley 储百亮 @ChuBailiang

"The U.S. thought a trade war would be simple, but then it stubbed its foot on China's iron slab." People's Daily online shares an assessment of Trump's switch on ZTE -- as a vindication for China's strategy in the trade friction:https://goo.gl/3oQMFQ

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10266
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby pankajs » 14 May 2018 20:59

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-business
China Counters Trump by Mending Fences From Japan to India
When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang smiled and clinked glasses with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at a reception in Tokyo last week, it served as a reminder of just how rare these types of warm gestures have been between the Asian neighbors.

The first visit by a Chinese premier to Japan in seven years was the latest step in Beijing’s attempt to shore up fraught ties with other powers to counter escalating tensions with the U.S. It came after an equally congenial visit to Indonesia, and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s unexpected rapprochements with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.

<snip>

“China is trying to make an opportunity out of a bad situation. The Trump administration’s moves on trade could negatively affect the Chinese economy at a time when it faces many internal challenges,” said Mary Gallagher, director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan. “But the U.S. has also antagonized many of its important trading partners and allies, so China is smart to try to counter the U.S.”

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 15 May 2018 06:07


My earlier post here
In the Korean peninsula, China is playing a huge highstakes game in collusion with NoKo to achieve three things. One, show China's clout; two, drive a wedge between SoKo & USA; three, isolate USA.

I believe that the latest Modi-Xi summit is a part of the same Chinese strategy, vis-a-vis India.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2851
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Kashi » 15 May 2018 08:54

chetak wrote:One can understand the angst of the japan times. The US has always provided a security umbrella for them and now that the US is of late, focussing more on it's own needs, some sort of cognitive dissonance has overtaken these guys.


No really. Japan times (and their sister publication Asahi Shimbun) are more similar to "The Hindu".

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17107
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby chetak » 15 May 2018 10:07

Kashi wrote:
chetak wrote:One can understand the angst of the japan times. The US has always provided a security umbrella for them and now that the US is of late, focussing more on it's own needs, some sort of cognitive dissonance has overtaken these guys.


No really. Japan times (and their sister publication Asahi Shimbun) are more similar to "The Hindu".


Thanks. Didn't know that.

Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 706
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Haresh » 15 May 2018 15:11

Warning sounded over China's 'debtbook diplomacy'
Academics identify 16 countries loaned billions that they can’t afford to repay

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -diplomacy

ryogi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 26 May 2017 16:48

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby ryogi » 17 May 2018 17:04

Apologies if already posted somewhere else:

Looks like the dragon may not be burning as brightly as it likes to show.

"China, Russia and other authoritarian countries inflate their official GDP figures by anywhere from 15 to 30 percent in a given year, according to a new analysis of a quarter-century of satellite data.


The working paper, by Luis R. Martinez of the University of Chicago, also found that authoritarian regimes are especially likely to artificially boost their gross domestic product numbers in the years before elections, and that the differences in GDP reporting between authoritarian and non-authoritarian countries can't be explained by structural factors, such as urbanization, composition of the economy or access to electricity.

Martinez's findings are derived from a novel data source: satellite imagery that tracks changes in the level of nighttime lighting within and between countries over time."

https://m.sfgate.com/business/article/Satellite-data-strongly-suggests-that-China-12916204.php?utm_campaign=fb-tablet&utm_source=CMS+Sharing+Button&utm_medium=social#photo-15558125

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5364
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Peregrine » 17 May 2018 17:17

Mods : This is a painful episode of the Pious Muslims of Xinjiang suffering at the Hands of their Terroristani Brethren's All Weather, Higher than the Himalayas, Deeper than the Pacific Ocean; Stronger than Steel, Sweeter than Honey and More Precious than EYES who are now treating the Muslim People of Xinjiang in a most Deleterious and Despicable Manner.

I am Posting the Full Article - running into Six Pages - on the Terroristan Thread in an effort to have our Lootenians Democratic and Secular - led by the Despicable One who wants a Continued an Continuous as well as an Uninterrupted and Uninterruptible Dialogue with the Land of the Pure and Home of the Terrorists - to take up with the Chinese Authorities and Persuade them to Treat their Muslim Brethren thus enabling them to Destroy China. I am also X Posting the Link on the Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat and the Islamism & Islamophobia Abroad Threads.

Here is a Link to the Article :

'Worse than prison': A rare look inside China's detention camps to 'brainwash' Muslims

My Comments : Woe is me!

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 17 May 2018 20:50

Indonesia likely to give India access to deep seaport in Sabang - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
Indonesia might give India access to a deep sea port in Sabang, including to its naval vessels. Addressing a Delhi audience here today, Luhut Pandjaitan, maritime affairs minister in the Jokowi government, said, “India and Indonesia have started naval drills in 2017, but we can explore doing more between our coast guards. This will become even better when the Sabang seaport is established with India. Sabang port has a depth of 40 metres which is good even for submarines.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to travel to Indonesia for a bilateral summit with Joko Widodo in the next couple of weeks. Among his engagements, Modi is expected to announce an Indian hospital in Sambang, which is just over 700km from Andaman & Nicobar islands. Luhut said the Jokowi government wanted India to invest in an economic zone in that same area, which is not particularly developed. There is speculation that Modi might undertake a sea journey to Sambang to highlight how close Indonesia is to India, but sources say defence and space would be areas of cooperation during Modi’s forthcoming visit.

“Indian coast guard ships now make regular visits to Indonesian ports and emphasize the closeness between the two countries. The Indonesian side has expressed interest in getting commercial investment in the port of Sabang, which is the westernmost point of Indonesia. This port has a deep draft but rudimentary facilities,” said Gurjit Singh, former ambassador to Indonesia.

Questioned about Indonesia’s response to OBOR and China’s decision to station missiles on the disputed Spratlys in the South China Sea, Luhut said it was a “sensitive matter”. He said they had raised the issue with the Chinese side, but “in a friendly manner.”

Luhut said, “I spoke with my Chinese counterpart about the 9-dash line. They don’t deny that Natuna island is ours. But then the 200-mile EEZ is also ours and that goes beyond the line. I ask why they are claiming the South China Sea. They say they have a historical claim, its part of the sentiment of the mainland, and it was the route taken by the Chinese explorer Zheng He. I said if this is true, then, when Krakatoa exploded, Indonesian ash settled around the world including Beijing, and we could claim this.:D After years of denying they had a problem with China’s claiming the seas and territory around, Indonesia renamed its sea the Natuna Sea.

In fact, in a rare admission, the Indonesian minister, considered to be very close to Jokowi, described OBOR as a “Chinese proposal”. “We do not want to be controlled by OBOR. We would like it to link to our maritime policy, of a global maritime fulcrum.” Chinese premier Li Keqiang was in Jakarta earlier this week pushing OBOR projects with the Jokowi government.

“India-Indonesia relations are important for the balance of power in Asia,” Luhut said.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2573
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby kit » 18 May 2018 01:22

Indonesia seems to favor the policy of appeasing both China and India like India does for Russia and US

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3129
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby Rudradev » 18 May 2018 02:44

Article from a Western lens but may be worth skimming for current perspective.

http://quillette.com/2018/04/10/china-model-failing/



POLITICS, WORLD AFFAIRS
Published on April 10, 2018
The China Model Is Failing
written by Eric C. Hendriks

Chairman Xi Jinping is preparing to prolong his rule beyond the end of his second term, thereby breaking with the two-term limit set by Deng Xiaoping. The two-term limit had been one of the few civilized elements of China’s political system, checking the worst excesses of despotism and providing some structure for the peaceful transfer of power.

Xi’s stunt is, however, only the latest episode in China’s creeping return to more intensified political control. This development has yet to show its full destructive impact on China’s economic development (for that, we must wait a few more years), but it is already having a devastating effect in the realm of ideas, as it is the final nail in the coffin of the ‘China model’ philosophy. Of course, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its defenders will continue to portray China’s political system as uniquely virtuous. But, intellectually and internationally, that line will be difficult to maintain. It is precisely because those old perceptions are now threatened, that the Propaganda Ministry has ordered Chinese media to lash out against the Western “obsession” with liberal democracy.

Defenders of the China model hold that China has made great progress toward developing a unique and laudable societal model that combines economic success with political stability, draws on ‘Asian values’ of the kind praised by the late Lee Kuan Yew, and possesses as much legitimacy as liberal democracy does in the West. International Relations scholar Zhang Weiwei, businessman Eric Li, and philosophy professor Daniel A. Bell have all argued that China is successful and stable precisely because the Chinese do not elect their government. This leaves the CCP free to rule in a meritocratic, harmonious, and stable fashion. Democratic India has often served as a negative counter-example. China, they claim, would do better to follow its own unique cultural and political traditions than attempt to emulate those found in the West.

So, was the China model supposed to be an authoritarian dictatorship? No. Bell in particular reassured Western sceptics that the CCP’s harmonizing guidance would leave room for a freer civil society, critical journalism, and a greater openness to the outside world. When those sceptics expressed doubts about the CCP’s civility, Bell would often point to the two-term limitation and the orderly transitions of power between leadership generations since the nineties. China – or so the story went – had forever freed itself from leadership cults. The key point was that, although the China model was not liberal or democratic, it was not a raw authoritarianism either.

That is, however, exactly what it is now appears to be. Certainly, since Xi came to power in 2012 – but more probably since the Olympics in 2008 – the liberalization process has stagnated and even reversed. Political control of universities, media, and NGOs has tightened, while the censorship and propaganda machines have run at full capacity. At the same time, however, rising prosperity has created a growing middle class, which is increasingly educated and demanding. China observers in the West had hoped that the party-state would compromise with this middle class by allowing civil society, the media, business, and the universities to become increasingly independent and open to the rest of the world, which would nudge China towards liberal democracy with ‘Chinese characteristics’ or some other innovative synthesis. But, instead, the party-state has dug in its heels.

Megalomaniacal political projects are back in vogue, too. Deng, who had to undergo Mao’s social engineering madness for 30 years, had once renounced such projects: no more visionary Leaders bearing Great Plans, thank you very much! Yet Xi has a vision of a new ‘silk road’ from China to Europe. The practicalities of this idea are rather vague, but the main aim is to draw countries in Central and Southern Asia into the Chinese sphere of influence with infrastructure projects and investments. This project undermines the ‘free market,’ as companies come under pressure to invest in what is primarily a political project.

Furthermore, this project will march China straight into an Islamist trouble spot. If, as planned, China decides to construct infrastructure worth $62 billion in Pakistan, it is likely to be drawn into the country’s problems. In China itself, the party-state is already faced with the problem of what to do about non-Han Muslims. In the northwestern province of Xinjiang, where the Uyghur Muslims live, the party-state conducts a reign of terror. The New York Times speaks of a “dystopian totalitarian surveillance state,” and now that same party-state seeks to reach further westward, deeper into the Islamic world.

My prognosis: growing tensions between Party authoritarianism and the urban middle class, and growing tensions between the Chinese state and non-Han peoples in its expanding sphere of influence.

Most Chinese and many Western analysts still mistakenly think, however, that China is heading toward a golden future under the current regime. They are blinded by the image of a decisive leader and party elite, and underestimate the importance of societal pluralism. By which, I mean independent science, journalism, professional organizations and trade unions, the free market, inter-party competition, and freedom of inquiry and public discussion. All of these are presently either undermined or prohibited. In China, power and prestige are concentrated in a single organization, the CCP, and its elite which has a finger in every pie. This is a legacy of both communism and the imperial tradition with its elite of Confucian mandarins. However, China’s rapid development over the last forty years was actually enabled by the liberalization process. The progress that has occurred was due to the relative increase in societal pluralism since the death of Mao, and Deng’s subsequent Reform and Opening Up. But now Xi’s clan is offering a return to the old, controlling paradigm, which will put a brake on China’s further development.


Of course, the CCP argues the exact opposite. China, it says, will continue to prosper because it is the party-state that harmonizes society. The ‘father-mother officials’ (fumguan) take care of their child-subjects by protecting them against ‘inharmonic’ ideas and impulses, and the CCP can be trusted to use its power responsibly because its leaders are wise and attained their positions strictly based on their administrative and moral merits. In his 2016 book, The China Model, Daniel A. Bell speaks of “Chinese meritocracy,” which he favorably contrasts with the circus-show elections and demagogy of Western liberal democracy. Proponents and defenders of Chinese meritocracy contend that Western voters often vote for bad politicians because they are distracted by wild nonsense, whereas the Party selects the best leaders through backroom processes – “a sophisticated and comprehensive system for selecting and promoting political talent that underpinned China’s stunning economic success.” I think I know Bell well enough to say that he wouldn’t describe Xi’s power grab as ‘meritocratic,’ and that recent developments must have disappointed him.

The figure of Xi originally seemed to strengthen the case for the China model. Bell and others loved to compare the ‘serene’ and ‘strong’ Xi with the erratic and clumsy Donald Trump. The comparison has always been misleading, however. Yes, Trump is incompetent – but what do we actually know about Xi? Xi is even more of a princeling than Trump, and he flourishes in a sheltered Party realm. He does not face domestic criticism from anyone. Everywhere, obsequious officials await him with notebooks to jot down his wise utterances. His inviolability is a façade. When Xi visited the Netherlands in 2014 and Tibetans protested on the Dam Square, a screen had to be erected separating him from the demonstrators so that he would be spared the sight of dissent.

Even if we accept that the CCP does appoint the best administrators, the party-state’s massive societal footprint still undermines meritocracy in the rest of society. Scholars with party connections are favored, so faculty selection is not purely based on scholarly merits. Entrepreneurs with party connections enjoy advantages, so economic competition is polluted, and innovation, product quality, and efficiency are less strongly rewarded. And so on. A true meritocracy is pluralistic; it rewards in a differentiated manner across different societal systems. Incentivizing excellence in specific arts and virtues enables talent to flourish. But centralized political control and interventionism crudely over-ride those differentiated evaluative systems with a single political hierarchy.

The main problem is that the Chinese place too much faith in the infinite wisdom and ability of a great leader and party elite. That totalitarian tendency hurts Chinese society, but it might also eventually become the problem of liberal democracies. We share a globalized world with a hyper-authoritarian superpower that is politically hostile to the liberal world order from which it profits economically. And that super-power is led by a man of boundless ambition.



Dr. Eric C. Hendriks is a Dutch, Beijing-based sociologist who previously worked at Peking University and is now connected to the University of Bonn. You can follow him on Twitter @ericchendriks





ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby ramana » 18 May 2018 03:28

kit wrote:Indonesia seems to favor the policy of appeasing both China and India like India does for Russia and US



This is a far cry from 1965 when Sukarno demanded the Indian Ocean be renamed as Indonesian Ocean.

So all good.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9786
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby sum » 18 May 2018 05:21

This will become even better when the Sabang seaport is established with India. Sabang port has a depth of 40 metres which is good even for submarines.

Wonder why he would specifically mention submarines? :twisted:

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17107
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby chetak » 18 May 2018 14:05

ramana wrote:
kit wrote:Indonesia seems to favor the policy of appeasing both China and India like India does for Russia and US



This is a far cry from 1965 when Sukarno demanded the Indian Ocean be renamed as Indonesian Ocean.

So all good.


Don't get carried away saar. :)

The sharia effect will kick in, sooner or later, but it will, for sure

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 18 May 2018 18:28

chetak wrote:Don't get carried away saar. :)

The sharia effect will kick in, sooner or later, but it will, for sure

May be.

But, for now, there are at least two strong reasons for anti-Chinese sentiments among Indonesians: the long-standing Chinese claim on Natuna which forced Indonesia last year to reiterate its claim by changing the nomenclature of the sea to North Natuna Sea; secondly, the usurpation of traditional fishing grounds by China with Chinese CG & Navy increasingly protecting the Chinese trawlers.

Of course, long term, none can predict even the India-China relationship.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 18 May 2018 18:37

China to use Taiwan as base to isolate India, Japan: US lawmaker - PTI
WASHINGTON: China will turn Taiwan into a major nuclear and conventional military base, a move which will allow it to project power into the Indian Ocean and consolidate more control over the disputed South China Sea to "isolate" both India and Japan, a US lawmaker has warned.

Expressing concern over China's growing economic and military power, Richard D Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center told lawmakers yesterday that Beijing had a new strategy for gaining eventual global military access called "debt trap diplomacy".

"China may be using debt pressure right now to force Djibouti to limit US military access in that strategic base. It recently gained ownership of a new large port in Sri Lanka by debt default. Vanuatu, Pakistan, Thailand and others are vulnerable," Fisher said.

A good reason to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which could be perhaps as early as the mid-2020s, was that China will turn Taiwan into a major nuclear and conventional military base, he said.


"This will then trigger Chinese moves to isolate Japan, consolidate control over the South China Sea even more, project power into the Indian Ocean to isolate India. In Latin America, China will continue to exploit opportunities to cause trouble and gain military access," he said.

China claims almost all of South China Sea and also laid claims on the Senkaku islands under the control of Japan in East China Sea and resorted to aggressive patrols in the last two years.

Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan have counter claims over the waterway.

The US periodically deploys its naval ships and fighter planes to assert freedom of navigation.

By the 2030s, the Chinese Air Force air mobile projection could be based on 100 to 200 large C-17 size Xian Y-20 heavy transports, and both their lightweight airborne forces and now medium-weight airborne projection forces are anticipated.

China is assembling a power-projection Navy that, by the 2030s, may have the world's first totally nuclear-powered carrier battle group, Fisher said.

It will have an initial amphibious projection of about 12 large ships by probably as early as the early 2030s. And the Chinese marines are reforming into a force of about 100,000.


Other lawmakers also echoed Fisher's concerns over China. Congressman Devin Nunes, Chairman House Intelligence Committee said during a Congressional hearing, that previous attempts to appease China had failed to improve the bilateral relations.

"In fact, China has only become emboldened and may now be the preeminent threat to American security {duh ?} , our economy and our values," Nunes said.

"From its One Belt Road initiative to its unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea, China is using its economic and military power to subvert international norms, undermine US national security, threaten our friends and allies, and reshape the global balance of power," Nunes said.

Ranking Member Congressman Adam Schiff said China's military growth had taken place alongside the Belt and Road initiative.

China's massive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) seeks to build rail, maritime and road links from Asia to Europe and Africa in a revival of ancient Silk Road trading routes.

"Through the BRI and other tools such as the Asian Infrastructure Bank, China seems to be leading in economic engagement and then backfilling with greater military capacity as its capabilities grow," Schiff said.

The Chinese Army base in Djibouti follows decades of Chinese investment in diplomacy in Africa and increasing oil imports by China, much of which passes through the Bab-el-Mandeb strait between Djibouti and Yemen, he said.

"Similarly, Beijing's militarisation of the South China Sea reflects a deliberate approach that seeks to protect core Chinese economic and strategic interests that have long predated the island reclamation effort and the buildup there," he said.

Dan Blumenthal from the American Enterprise Institute said under the BRI initiative, a lot of the major construction and investment projects were going to places like Pakistan and Bangladesh, which will provide outlets for China into the Indian Ocean that don't have to go through the Straits of Malacca and other areas that the US dominate.

"It really is a cash or investment-for-access deal, in many of these places," he said.

"The BRI will never achieve, in my view, what Xi Jinping has said, which is to establish a Silk Road. But, through targeted investments, China will gain a lot in terms of access...The base in Djibouti is a very big deal, a very, very big deal, and is the fruit of cash for diplomacy, as well," he said.


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 18 May 2018 18:57

The East Asian reset - Pallavi Aiyar, The Hindu
It appears to be the season for diplomatic resets in Asia. Would-be hegemon China is at the centre of this regional spring thaw. India is not the only rival with which Beijing has recently been trading pleasantries rather than threats. Usually fraught China-Japan ties are in the midst of an upswing as well.

Peace overture

Last week, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang was in Japan on a three-day state visit, his first trip to Tokyo since taking office five years ago. It was also the first top-level bilateral visit after relations between the two countries plummeted in 2012 over a chain of disputed islands claimed by both sides.

The melt in this years-long freeze has been evident for several months. One signal came last September when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe became the first Japanese leader in 15 years to attend the Chinese Embassy’s annual National Day celebrations in Tokyo. Since then, Mr. Abe and Mr. Xi have met on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam.

But the real “reset” began in more recent weeks with the resumption of a stalled high-level economic dialogue after an eight-year hiatus, which followed close on the heels of an April visit to Tokyo by China’s State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. In early May, Mr. Abe spoke to Mr. Xi on the phone to discuss the unfolding events on the Korean peninsula, the first phone call ever between the two leaders. Talk of a possible trip to China by Mr. Abe later this year is rife. However, it would be sensible to hold back on the champagne just yet.

Why the tension?

Japan and China have one of the most tense, yet economically intertwined relationships. Beijing believes Japan is yet to properly atone for its brutal invasion of China in the run-up to and during the Second World War. In the post-War alignment Japan has remained firmly tethered to the U.S., often putting it in an adversarial position vis-à-vis China. Perhaps the most challenging point of contention is the territorial dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands as they are known in China and Japan, respectively, in the East China Sea.

Nonetheless, Japan was an important player in China’s economic rise, which saw the country’s transformation from an agrarian backwater to a global manufacturing powerhouse. According to the Japan External Trade Organisation, China-Japan trade stands at about $350 billion (by comparison, India-China trade is $84.44 billion).

China has overtaken Japan as the world’s second largest economy and has also eclipsed it as a global geostrategic player. And the two countries continue to vie for influence in the region, with Southeast Asia in particular emerging as a theatre for this competition.

What has changed?

So, what explains the ongoing thaw, which has seen Mr. Li chatting with Japanese emperor Akihito and gifting the archipelago a pair of crested ibises? According to Shin Kawashima, a China scholar at the University of Tokyo, there is a triumvirate of motivating factors on the Japanese side: an unpredictable U.S., North Korea and business interests.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s America First policy and the tariffs he has slapped on some $60 billion worth of Chinese products have also impacted Japan, which despite its status as a U.S. ally, failed to get any exemption from new duties on steel and aluminium. This is only the latest example of the increasingly uncertain U.S. policy towards Japan and the wider region, which Prof. Shin describes as “fragile and vague”. The result is that Japan needs to keep ties with China on an even keel, at least until it can be more sure of the U.S.’s intentions.

Mr. Abe is also hoping that China can use its influence with North Korea to highlight Japan’s concerns, at a time when Tokyo feels somewhat shut out of the flurry of diplomacy on the Korean peninsula. He is particularly worried that in the heat of rapprochement, allies like the U.S. will forget about the 12 Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea in the 1970s and '80s who still remain unaccounted for.

And finally the many Japanese businesses invested in China, that have on occasion suffered punitive measures from Beijing, always welcome stronger bilateral ties.

Conversely for China, the idea of Japan’s leader asking for support on North Korea plays well domestically as an example of Beijing’s international clout. Moreover, given the simmering possibility of a trade war with the U.S., better ties with economic heavyweight Japan are also in China’s interests. In addition, China is keen on getting Japan to play ball with its signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), something that Mr. Li stressed more than once during his visit last week.

His efforts culminated in the establishment of a public-private council in Japan to discuss joint projects with China related to the BRI. Although initially reluctant to participate in the BRI, Tokyo has signalled that it is open to the initiative as long as proposed infrastructure projects meet the criteria of being “open, transparent, fair and economically feasible.” In this way Japan can keep on the right side of China without necessarily committing to participation. Similarly, the Japan-backed Asian Development Bank is exploring co-financing projects with the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment bank, even though Japan has formally steered clear of it.

Yet, any China-Japan alignment is a tactical and provisional affair, rather than long-term and strategic, born out of the current moment in a fluid geopolitical landscape. It is more akin to a pause rather than a resolution of conflict. And as with the India-China reset, although it is temporarily beneficial to both sides, the foundation of the bilateral relationship remains troubled and treacherous.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 19 May 2018 15:31

In a first, China lands strategic bombers in SCS - PTI
China has for the first time landed strategic bombers on an island in the disputed South China Sea (SCS), drawing sharp reaction from the United States which said that the move will “raise tensions and destabilise the region.”

China’s air force said that its fighter jets, including an H-6K bomber, had recently conducted take-off and landing training on an island reef in the resource-rich SCS.

The training had elevated the air force’s abilities of “reaching its full territory, assaulting in full time and space, and striking in full scope”, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post quoted the People’s Liberation Air Force (PLAF) as saying.


Enhancing real combat ability: expert

Wang Minliang, a military expert, was quoted as saying that the bombers’ take-off and landing training was “beneficial to enhance the real combat ability against all kinds of security threats in the sea.”

People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper, on Friday posted a video on its Twitter account featuring a series of the H-6K’s training programmes, including take-off, landing and flying.

US sees it as continued militarisation

A spokesman at the Pentagon, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Logan, called the exercise an act of “China’s continued militarisation of disputed features in the South China Sea,” the Post report said.

Bonnie Glaser, a China security expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the location of the H-6K landing was believed to be Woody Island — Yongxing island in Chinese — on which China’s Sansha city government is located.

China had established Sansha City, a prefecture-level city of Hainan Province, in 2012 to administer the SCS islands identified by China as Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha island groups and their surrounding waters.

“I believe this is the first time a bomber has landed in the South China Sea. No doubt the H-6K will soon land on an island in Spratly [Islands] since hangers there are built to accommodate bombers,” the Post quoted Ms. Glaser as saying.

Embroiled in a littoral dispute

In early May, the US said that it was prepared to take measures against militarisation of the SCS, after Beijing reportedly installed new missiles on outposts in the Spratly Islands — known in China as the Nansha Islands — that are also claimed by Vietnam and the Philippines.

China claims almost all of the SCS but Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan have counter claims.

The US is periodically deploying its naval ships and fighter planes to assert freedom of navigation.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 875
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby yensoy » 19 May 2018 22:36



The needless pace at which China is doing these things makes me wonder if we are all missing something here. There really is no urgency. US is not going to invade China, not today, not tomorrow, never. Taiwan is going to be de-facto independent but won't proclaim it. Other Philippine sea claimants don't have the wherewithal to confront China, not even Vietnam. So why is China trying to attract so much attention to itself by going into a self-escalating course?

The only dynamic here is Korea, maybe China will allow the Koreas to patch up and open the window to US influence right at its border, and as quid pro quo feels that it needs to project itself deep into South-East Asia/Australia, traditionally areas of American influence.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 20 May 2018 11:13

yensoy wrote:


The needless pace at which China is doing these things makes me wonder if we are all missing something here.

China's designs in ICS (some call it SCS) much precede the latest 'ambitious, autocratic' Emperor Xi Jinping.

ICS is a 'core interest' to China. ICS was elevated to core-status only in 2010/2011. As it did that, it tried to use its cat's paw, North Korea, to alter the status-quo. North Korea tested a nuclear device and provoked South Korea aggressively. China's increased assertiveness in the ICS followed its stand-off with the Japanese coast guard near Senkaku around that time. The Senkaku islands fall within China’s First Island Chain (also known as Near Seas). Around the same time, there was also the growing noise from the Philippines too (that later resulted in that country filing arbitration proceedings in UNCLOS the very next year or so) regarding its conflicting maritime claims with China. The China-North Korea nexus of 2010 made Obama announce his 'Asian Pivot' in 2011.

Before 2011, China was suggesting joint development of ICS in order that it can avoid potential conflicts with so many claimants. That was a ruse as China always does, biding time while developing capabilities. When China felt confident and with the events of c. 2011, the ICS narrative changed diametrically. Its dealing with the ASEAN bloc on ICS was also tuned to its strategy, postponing the 'Code of Parties' (CoP) issue and dealing with them individually instead of en-bloc. It announces fishing seasons in ICS and enforces that none can fish there without its permission, thereby establishing a de-facto authority after having lost the de-jure authority.

If the US talks of Indo-Pacific, the Chinese want to demonstrate that they have a large presence in the throat that connects both these oceans thereby being able to thwart the Indo-Pacific link-up. It is on the basis of this new-found maritime strength that the Chinese leadership led by Xi Jinping is pursuing an ‘active foreign policy’. China wants to be able to dominate in the sea in the area it calls as the ‘First Island Chain’, the series of islands that stretch from Japan in the north to Taiwan and the Philippines to the south to Indonesia in the West.

China has multiple reasons for militarizing the ICS. But, the most important reason is that China wants to ensure that in the case of its decision to invade and occupy Taiwan, the US would not be able to come to the latter's rescue breaching the Chinese defences. The Chinese calculation is that if it could hold off the USN for ten days or so, it would complete its task of accomplishing its another core-interest, namely merging Taiwan with the mainland.

IMO, Xi outlined the plans in the recent 19th CPC Congress when he said that the first of the two-stage plan to complete the PLA's modernisation would end by 2035, and the second by 2050 when it would become a world-class force. I interpret that to mean that latest by 2035, it would have annexed Taiwan staving off the US and by 2050 it would eclipse the US militarily.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 20 May 2018 14:39

X-post

With an eye on China, India to hold naval exercise with Vietnam - Rajat Pandit, ToI
India will hold its first naval exercise with Vietnam next week, as part of the overall strategy to steadily build military ties with nations in the Asia Pacific region with an eye firmly on a confrontationist and expansionist China, even as defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman is slated to visit Hanoi next month.

Three Indian warships on operational deployment to South East Asia and North West Pacific region, stealth frigate INS Sahyadri, missile corvette INS Kamorta and fleet tanker INS Shakti, will enter the Tien Sa Port (Danang) on Monday.

“From May 21 to 25, there will be a professional interaction between personnel of the two navies, official calls and interaction with dignitaries of the Vietnamese Government. On completion of the harbour phase, warships from the two navies would be undertaking the exercise,” said Navy spokesperson Captain D K Sharma.

With defence cooperation being a vital component of the “comprehensive strategic partnership” between the two countries, Sitharaman is scheduled to visit Vietnam in June to further bolster bilateral military ties. The chief of general staff of the Vietnam People's Army and the commander-in chief of Vietnam People's Navy are also slated to visit India later this year.

The two countries are wary of China’s aggressive tactics in Asia-Pacific, especially the contentious South China Sea, and have steadily cranked up their bilateral military ties over the last few years. There have also been a series of high-level visits to Vietnam, with PM Narendra Modi visiting Hanoi in September 2016 and announcing a new $500 million defence line of credit.

After inking a “joint vision statement on defence for 2015-2020” in May 2015, the two countries also decided to elevate their “strategic partnership” to “comprehensive strategic partnership” during Modi’s visit in September 2016.

India has also offered the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles as well as the Akash surface-to-air missile defence systems to Vietnam.

India is also set to train Vietnamese fighter pilots to fly the Sukhoi-30 fighter jets, much like it has been tutoring sailors from that country on the complex art of operating Kilo-class submarines for the last four years, as earlier reported by TOI.

Apart from regular port calls by warships, the Indian Navy cooperates with the Vietnam People’s Navy on a wide range of issues from operational interactions and training to logistics support and exchange of experts.

India, of course, has also stepped up defence cooperation, ranging from expansion in military visits and exercises to training and technology-sharing, with other Southeast Asian countries like Singapore, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia.

As for the South China Sea, India has repeatedly stressed the need for all to respect the freedom of navigation in international waters, right of passage and overflight, unimpeded commerce and access to resources in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22786
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby SSridhar » 20 May 2018 14:46

Duterte says Philippines won't oppose China on activity in South China Sea - Straits Times
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte reiterated that he would not provoke China into a war following reports that the Chinese military landed long-range bombers on an airport in the South China Sea.

"You know they have the planes, not stationed in Spratly but near the provinces facing - Chinese provinces facing the Spratly and the China Sea. And with their hypersonic, they can reach Manila within seven to 10 minutes," Mr Duterte said in a speech on Saturday (May 19) in Cebu, according to transcript emailed by his office on Sunday.

Facing criticism over his apparent inaction on China's increasing military activity in the South China Sea, Mr Duterte questioned where his country would end up should war erupt in the region.

"What will we arm ourselves with if there's a war? Will we resort to slapping each other? I couldn't even buy myself a rifle. It was given to me. So how will we even fight with the Chinese?" he said.

Mr Duterte said there was no assurance that the United States would remain on the side of the South-east Asian nation if war broke out.

A more feasible solution would be to forge a joint exploration pact with China to harness the disputed sea's potential, he said.

Senator Panfilo Lacson called on the Philippine's government on Saturday to act on China's militarisation of the disputed waters. He said the Philippines could seek the help of its ally countries to pressure China to stop its military activities. It could also insist on the UN arbitration ruling won by the Philippines in July 2016.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17107
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Postby chetak » 20 May 2018 18:37

At least now we know why they are so keen on grabbing AP.

"south tibet" my left foot.



China’s gold mine at Arunachal border may become another flash point with India




China’s gold mine at Arunachal border may become another flash point with India

Projecting the mining operations as part of China's move to take over Arunachal Pradesh, the report said "people familiar with the project say the mines are part of an ambitious plan by Beijing to reclaim South Tibet".


Beijing | May 20, 2018

China has begun large-scale mining operations on its side of the border with Arunachal Pradesh where a huge trove of gold, silver and other precious minerals valued at about USD 60 billion has been found, a media report said on Sunday. The mine project is being undertaken in Lhunze county under Chinese control adjacent to the Indian border, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as part of southern Tibet.

Projecting the mining operations as part of China’s move to take over Arunachal Pradesh, the report said “people familiar with the project say the mines are part of an ambitious plan by Beijing to reclaim South Tibet”. “China’s moves to lay claim to the region’s natural resources while rapidly building up infrastructure could turn it into ‘another South China Sea’ they said,” it said.

The Post report with inputs from local officials, Chinese geologists as well as strategic experts comes less than a month after the first ever informal summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping that was aimed at cooling tensions to avert incidents like the Dokalam military standoff last year. The 73-day standoff marked a new low in bilateral ties.
Lhunze was in the news last October, just about two months after Dokalam, when Xi in a rare gesture replied to correspondence from a herding family in Lhunze County underscoring Beijing’s claim to the area. The family is based in Yumai, China’s smallest town in terms of population located close to Arunachal Pradesh.

Xi thanked the father and his two daughters for their loyalty and contributions to China, and also urged the people of Lhunze to “set down roots” to develop the area for the national interest.

The Post report said although mining has been going on in the world’s highest mountain range for thousands of years, the challenge of accessing the remote terrain and concerns about environmental damage had until now limited the extent of the activities. But the unprecedented heavy investment by the Chinese government to build roads and other infrastructure in the area has made travel easy.

Most of the precious minerals which include rare earths used to make hi-tech products are hidden under Lhunze county, the report said. By the end of last year, the scale of mining activity in Lhunze had surpassed that of all other areas in Tibet, it said.

People have poured into the area so fast that even local government officials could not provide a precise count for the current population, it said. “Enormous, deep tunnels have been dug into the mountains along the military confrontation line, allowing thousands of tonnes of ore to be loaded and transported out by trucks daily, along roads built through every village,” it said.

Extensive power lines and communication networks have been established, while construction is under way on an airport that can handle passenger jets, it said. With more mines being dug in Lhunze and surroundings, a county official told the Post that more than 80 per cent of the county government’s tax income came from mining.

The mines would also lead to a situation akin to “another South China Sea” arising out of the world’s highest mountain range, it said. Zheng Youye, a professor at the China University of Geosciences in Beijing and the lead scientist for a Beijing-funded northern Himalayan minerals survey, confirmed to the Post that a series of discoveries in recent years put the potential value of ores under Lhunze and the nearby area at 370 billion yuan (USD 58 billion). “This is just a preliminary estimate. More surveys are underway,” he said.

There could be more big discoveries as Chinese researchers learn more about the area. With strong financial backing from the government, they have already amassed extensive data on the region.

According to Zheng, the new-found ores could tip the balance of power between China and India in the Himalayas. He said Chinese troops withdrew in the 1962 war from the areas in Arunachal Pradesh as they had no people to hold the territory.

The new mining activities would lead to a rapid and significant increase in the Chinese population in the Himalayas, Zheng said, which would provide stable, long-term support for any diplomatic or military operations aimed at gradually driving Indian forces out of territory claimed by China. “This is similar to what has happened in the South China Sea” where Beijing has asserted its claim to much of the contested waters by building artificial islands and increasing its naval activity, he said.

Hao Xiaoguang, a researcher with the Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Wuhan, Hubei who specialises in India-China issues said Beijing was likely to take the same approach to the Himalayas as in the South China Sea.

As China’s economic, geopolitical and military strength continues to increase, “it is only a matter of time before South Tibet returns to Chinese control,” Hao claimed. “What China (has) achieved today in the South China Sea was almost unthinkable a decade ago. I am optimistic (about) what will happen in the Himalayas in the coming years because President Xi has made it clear that ‘not a single inch of our land will be or can be ceded from China’, which definitely includes South Tibet,” he said.

But Hao said the Lhunze mining boom would not be expanded to other areas due to environmental reasons. In Lhunze, some of the newcomers are still acclimatising. The area is already teeming with people from different parts of China. Weng Qingzhen, who owns a Sichuan restaurant in the county, said she moved there less than two months ago after friends and relatives told her about the mining boom.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amol, Falijee and 26 guests