China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean [Archive]

Ray

06-12-2011, 04:39 PM

Ray, thanks for replying. Do you think a military alliance between the US and India would be a potent enough deterrent to China? What are your feelings on the likelihood of such an alliance/pact from the Indian side?

India is said to be having a 'strategic relationship' with the US.

It has meant buying US equipment and some naval exercises and some visits of military personnel.

Earlier the US troops were trained at the Indian Jungle Warfare and Counter Insurgency School, had exercises in Ladakh (High Altitude), some HAHO exercises with the Indian Paratroopers, and some naval and air force exercises.

I presume it was more for interoperability and little in the way of strategic alliance.

There is no doubt that a US - India military alliance would be a deterrent to China and maybe that is why there is closer cooperation between India and the US in many fields, beyond defence, to include economically making India a challenge to China.

However, India has to tread carefully since abandoning Russia would make it closer to Pakistan and a Russia - China - Pakistan axis will not be in the interest of either India or the US.

While most Indians root for the US, yet even amongst them, quite a few are sceptical about US' reliability as an 'ally', in the military and strategic sense, since US is not taken to be quite in the mould of a 'friend in need, is a friend indeed'.

India is not an Anglo Saxon country and uncomfortable a truth that it maybe, Carl's statement is valid to understand the equation

Obviously this is a hypothetical discussion but it is still remarkable that we are having it. Would we be even having the same discussion if the country in question were Australia?

Even a 'natural' ally Israel is finding going difficult since US interests override!

Therefore, if Israel is having problems, India has no hope in hell!

Hence, India is satisfied with the US as a 'friend'.

Backwards Observer

06-12-2011, 05:00 PM

India is said to be having a 'strategic relationship' with the US.

[...]

Hence, India is satisfied with the US as a 'friend'.

Ray, thanks for your honest summation. Tat tvam asi.:)

Ray

06-25-2011, 08:29 AM

China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

Published on August 31, 2010 by Dean Cheng

The Indian Ocean is becoming increasingly important to China’s economic and security interests. China appears to be pursuing what has been widely characterized as a “string of pearls” strategy of cultivating India’s neighbors as friendly states, both to protect its economic and security interests and to balance a “rising India.” With Chinese influence in the region growing, it is essential that the U.S. not fall behind in the Indian Ocean, but maintain a steady presence in the region, both to signal its resolve to stay engaged and to avoid the difficulties of reentering a region.

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/china-s-view-of-south-asia-and-the-indian-ocean

Excerpts:

As the People’s Republic of China (PRC) expands its global economic and security interests, one region of growing importance to Beijing will be the Indian Ocean area. Not only must a significant portion of China’s oil imports transit this region, but one of China’s enduring friends (Pakistan) and one of its long-time rivals (India) border this region, as well as China’s sensitive Tibetan flank.

European colonialism ended Chinese and Indian isolation, both from each other and from the rest of the world, yet it affected the two major Asian powers very differently. India was conquered by the British and directly colonized. In the period of decolonization, the Indian Subcontinent was partitioned into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority East and West Pakistan (now Bangladesh and Pakistan, respectively).[1]

By contrast, although China retained nominal sovereignty, the Chinese view this period as the “Century of Humiliation.” From 1840 to 1945, China lost control of its destiny. During this period, foreigners collected China’s tariffs and taxes, were immune from Chinese law and prosecution, and ultimately were able to dictate China’s fate. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) won the Chinese civil war, Mao Zedong made a point to say that China would now “stand up.” For Mao and the rest of the CCP leadership, their victory marked the return of the ability of the Chinese to dictate their own future. This had two implications for Chinese views of South Asia.

The first implication is that Chinese territory is a unitary whole and inviolable. The “Century of Humiliation” saw foreign intrusions into China, the creation of concessions, and even the forcible removal of territory from Chinese control (e.g., Hong Kong and Taiwan). This would no longer be tolerated. In the South Asian context, from the perspective of the CCP leadership, Tibet, like Taiwan, is part of China, and any threat to Chinese control is wholly unacceptable.

The other implication is that China’s borders have been unduly affected and influenced by foreign pressure and domination, especially through the application of “unequal treaties.” Consequently, now that China is strong, it is Beijing that will determine whether it accepts the current borders or not. More to the point, from its perspective, China is under no obligation to accept borders that were demarcated by more powerful foreign parties.

See the Paragraphs on Chinese Relations with South Asian States.

For the foreseeable future, Chinese strategic planners will need to pay increasing attention to China’s Indian Ocean flank. In the short term, China is concerned about its growing dependence on the sea lanes of communications for sustaining China’s economic growth. In 2010, for the first time, China imported more than 50 percent of its oil consumption. Chinese President Hu Jintao has already raised the issue of the Malacca Strait. There is little question that it is a key chokepoint on China’s oil supply routes. Part of China’s interest in developing alternative ports and pipelines, such as in Pakistan and Burma, would seem to be motivated by a desire to reduce the criticality of the Malacca Strait.

Even if China’s oil lifeline did not have to transit the Strait of Malacca, it would nonetheless traverse significant portions of the Indian Ocean. The growth of the Indian navy means that Chinese economic development is potentially at the mercy of India, as well as the United States. The forging of Indian security links with Japan and the United States is therefore a source of concern.

The Recommendations for U.S. Policy are also worth a dekko, as is Maintaining a Strong U.S. Presence in the Region.

*************

Given the rather interesting thread on the South China Seas and China, I thought that though dated article Aug 2010 would be worth discussing.

How much has changed in the strategic perspective in South Asia, the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea?

Where is it heading?

What are the options for those effected by the latest 'happenings' around South Asia and Asia Pacific countries?

How will China and the US handle the ever changing kaleidoscope in this region of South Asia and the Asia Pacific Rim?

Backwards Observer

06-25-2011, 09:11 AM

Heritage's Dean Cheng offers these pointers in another 2010 analysis:

U.S. Reaction

With regard to China’s maneuvering in South Asia, the U.S. should:

-Continue to build strong strategic ties to India and encourage India to play a more active political and economic role in the region. To help India fulfill that role, Washington should continue to seek a robust military-to-military relationship with New Delhi and enhance defense trade ties.

-Collaborate more closely with India on initiatives that strengthen economic development and democratic trends in the region and work with India to counter any Chinese moves that could potentially undermine such trends in order to ensure the peaceful, democratic development of South Asia.

-Cooperate with India in matching increased Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean region. Given the substantial Indian naval capabilities, U.S. naval forces should increase their interaction with their Indian counterparts, both to improve Indian naval capabilities and to signal Beijing that its moves will be matched jointly by New Delhi and Washington.

Leadership Needed

With an ascendant China determined to flex its diplomatic and military muscle, American leadership is needed now more than ever.

China's Indian Provocations Part of Broader Trend (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Chinas-Indian-Provocations-Part-of-Broader-Trend) - Heritage Foundation - Sept 9, 2010.

***

Ray, you may also be interested in this speech by another "product of the Heritage Foundation":

Dinesh D'Souza Explains His Theory of the Obama Administration (http://www.myheritage.org/news/dinesh-dsouza-explains-his-theory-of-the-obama-administration/) - Heritage Foundation - March 16, 2011.

The Economist has a take:

Against D'Souza (http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/09/dinesh_dsouza_disgraces_himself) - The Economist - Sept 30, 2010.

Ray

06-25-2011, 02:01 PM

Heritage's Dean Cheng offers these pointers in another 2010 analysis:

China's Indian Provocations Part of Broader Trend (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Chinas-Indian-Provocations-Part-of-Broader-Trend) - Heritage Foundation - Sept 9, 2010.

***

Ray, you may also be interested in this speech by another "product of the Heritage Foundation":

Dinesh D'Souza Explains His Theory of the Obama Administration (http://www.myheritage.org/news/dinesh-dsouza-explains-his-theory-of-the-obama-administration/) - Heritage Foundation - March 16, 2011.

The Economist has a take:

Against D'Souza (http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/09/dinesh_dsouza_disgraces_himself) - The Economist - Sept 30, 2010.

I find Dean Cheng's article very incisive and he has summed it up well.

India is in the process raising and inducting two Division to bolster its defences and to ensure that China does not enter Indian territory and lay physical claim to the Indian State of Arunachal, which they call South Tibet.
That apart, India has purchased some C17 and are in the process of purchasing more of these strategic lifters, as also purchasing US 155mm Light Howitzers.

I could not see Dinesh D'Souza's video in it entirety as it had problems of buffering and finally crashed. However, what I could see and hear, was totally embarrassing and proved my point that these are the types who proved more loyal to the King than the King himself!

I agree with the Economist.

Ray

09-30-2011, 06:29 PM

These are links that could be read in conjunction.

The Myitsone dam project was being developed jointly by Burma and China at the head of the Irrawaddy river, the confluence of the Mali and N'Mai rivers in Kachin state, in an area currently the scene of conflict between government forces and ethnic minority insurgents.

The vast majority of the electricity produced on the dam would benefit China, and the dam had served to inflame growing anti-Chinese sentiment in Burma, our correspondent says......

"The people [are] really happy and welcome the decision made by President Thein Sein because it wasn't only [Aung San] Suu Kyi, let me remind you of that.

"It's the population, the whole Burmese who feel they belong to the culture heritage of the Irrawaddy river. They welcome the news."....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15121801

Chinese mining company pulled out of what was to be Pakistan's largest foreign-investment deal because of security concerns, complicating Islamabad's effort to position its giant neighbor as an alternative to the U.S. as its main ally.

An official at China Kingho Group, one of China's largest private coal miners, said on Thursday it had backed out in August from a $19 billion deal in southern Sindh province due to concerns for its personnel after recent bombings in Pakistan's major cities.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504576600671644602028.html

It is extraordinary that closest of allies of China are bucking the friendship when China alone has stood by them against all world opinion.

The issues of discontent in Africa is understandable and so is the problems in the South China Seas, but this is really unexplainable.

Is China losing her grip?

If so, why?

And yet, I believe that China is speedily attempting to link China with Afghanistan and some speculate a greater role of China to include taking over the vacuum cause by the US drawdown.

What exactly is China's gameplan when things are not going her way and that too in otherwise without doubt the closest friends of China.

Given the Xinjiang is a headache for China and the string of pearls an important strategic cog, with both Pakistan and Burma being obtuse, what unfettered harvest can China reap in these two countries and add another one to its kitty - Afghanistan?!

I might as well add that China is in the process of linking Bangladesh to Kunming via Myanmar by road and rail and building a deep sea port for Bangladesh.

What will be the strategic scenario in Asia Pacific?

Dayuhan

09-30-2011, 11:38 PM

Given the Xinjiang is a headache for China and the string of pearls an important strategic cog, with both Pakistan and Burma being obtuse, what unfettered harvest can China reap in these two countries and add another one to its kitty - Afghanistan?!

What is there to harvest in Afghanistan, beyond misery and headaches that make Xinjiang look pale by comparison?

I see no reason for China to be even remotely interested in moving into Afghanistan, and many reasons why they would not. Why would they want to bite off the same gnarly lump that the Russians and Americans choked on?

Ray

10-06-2011, 01:23 PM

What is there to harvest in Afghanistan, beyond misery and headaches that make Xinjiang look pale by comparison?

I see no reason for China to be even remotely interested in moving into Afghanistan, and many reasons why they would not. Why would they want to bite off the same gnarly lump that the Russians and Americans choked on?

Let me play the Devils Advocate to my own wondering as to what China will gain from Afghanistan.

The opening of Afghanistan’s first major railroad in August promises transformative economic and geopolitical changes that are yet to be fully understood. The recent completion of a railroad line from the Afghan-Uzbek border to Mazar-i-Sharif will be complemented by a railroad from Iran. Along with railroads planned by China and Pakistan, this will create economic synergies as Afghanistan is integrated with the railroads of its neighbors. Geopolitically, the Afghan railroads dovetail with China’s massive railroad program in Central Asia, Pakistan, and Iran. Further, as Iran, Pakistan, and Russia are hedging their bets on a U.S. troop withdrawal, railroads will strengthen their influence in Afghanistan. The railroad frenzy should be seen in this light.

These barriers are now breaking up. Afghanistan and its vicinity are being covered with railroads and will soon be plugged into the railroad networks of China, Russia, Pakistan, and the Middle East. The inauguration of Afghanistan’s first railroad on August 20-21, running between Hairaton bordering Uzbekistan and Mazar-i-Sharif in the north, is only the beginning of a wide-ranging railroad effort involving all regional powers and international development banks.

For example, an Iranian-funded railroad is being constructed from the Iranian town of Khaf to the western city of Herat, and the Chinese are planning a north-south railroad running from Tajikistan, via Afghanistan’s Aynak copper mine, to Pakistan. China is also planning a railroad line from Sher-Khan Bandar in Tajikistan via Mazar-i-Sharif to Herat, with a branch to the Turkmenistan Railroads line at Towraghondi. A second phase envisions a Chinese-funded line from Mazar-i-Sharif via Kabul and Jalalabad to Torkham near the Khyber Pass connecting Afghanistan and China. Pakistan, too, is looking at extending its Chaman line to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/5629/print

This is possible an indicator of Chinese interests to include Afghanistan.

Obviously China has an economic aim as also a strategic aim.

One should not take China's approach to issues to be executed in a similar manner as to what the USSR or US did or doing.

They would not have become such a huge Empire as is the Han landmass or what is China today, if they went about it in any other way than what they have done. The very fact that, notwithstanding the reality that it is a variety of peoples that the Hans conquered, 92% of their population claim that they are Hans.

If they increased their land mass by doing it the way others did, then Xinjiang and Tibet should have been burning, but they are not!

One has to see the manner in which they are increasing their strategic reach without stepping on any country's toes.

It is the Chinese way of doing things that one has to understand. This Chinese way of doing thing is called Yongxiabianyi in Manadrin. It is does not believe in muscle power and instead is based on a complex persuasive power.

Therefore, what is China's real intent?

bourbon

10-06-2011, 04:58 PM

Ken White

10-06-2011, 06:42 PM

No empire actually wants to go into Afghanistan, but they are forced into doing so in pursuit of greater objectives.Or is that simply a way to appear to have an ability to harvest (or something...). Many empires have gone there, most discovered, belatedly, that it really wasn't worth the trouble and then went elsewhere to achieve their goals...

There are many better ways to attain objectives than by stirring up folks who live in mountains. That is always a bad idea. :wry:

Dayuhan

10-06-2011, 09:19 PM

That's not the question to ask. The question to ask is what is there for China to harvest in Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East? And the answer that is - a lot. Afghanistan can be a spoiler in any of those endeavors.

No empire actually wants to go into Afghanistan, but they are forced into doing so in pursuit of greater objectives.

Agree with Ken. Afghanistan has little or no bearing on Chinese engagement in Central Asia and South Asia and none on the Middle East. There's no incentive for China to go in and every reason to stay out.

There are many better ways to attain objectives than by stirring up folks who live in mountains. That is always a bad idea. :wry:

Bein' one of them folks who live in the mountains, I have to agree... :D

bourbon

10-07-2011, 12:56 AM

Afghanistan has little or no bearing on Chinese engagement in Central Asia and South Asia and none on the Middle East.
Really?

China wants a stable Central Asia, not least of all for the purposes of energy security, and domestic stability vis-a-vis Xinjiang. Afghanistan was a sanctuary and source of funding (via narcotics) for insurgencies in both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan during the 1990's. Instability in Afghanistan feeds instability in the CARs.

China wants to connect Pakistani ports (Gwadar) to western China through rail, road and pipeline. But Pakistan has no strategic depth with regard to its India front. Those connections would be disrupted in the advent of war with India since they are within easy striking distance. And this is to say nothing of Pakistan's own goal of maintaining control of Afghanistan for strategic depth. As the Sino-Pak partnership strengthens – so to will China's interest in Afghanistan.

With regard to the Middle East, China's principle interest is hydrocarbons and securing their transport. China aims to secure transport by opening up alternatives to Indian Ocean routes – namely through Central Asia and Pakistan (see above).

Ken White

10-07-2011, 02:49 AM

China wants a stable Central Asia, not least of all for the purposes of energy security... Instability in Afghanistan feeds instability in the CARs....spluttered Vlad, "that might interfere with my plans..." (LINK) (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-says-wants-build-eurasian-union-222139037.html).
China wants to connect Pakistani ports (Gwadar) to western China through rail, road and pipeline. But Pakistan has no strategic depth with regard to its India front...As the Sino-Pak partnership strengthens – so to will China's interest in Afghanistan.Does China want that or does Pakistan suggest that China wants that? Does Pakistan want that (to include routing through Afghanistan, thereby...) and receive lukewarm Chinese support? IIRC, China has already backed down on adding Naval facilities at Qwadar...
With regard to the Middle East, China's principle interest is hydrocarbons and securing their transport. China aims to secure transport by opening up alternatives to Indian Ocean routes – namely through Central Asia and Pakistan (see above).Do you know that is fact or is that simply a logical supposition that may be bruited by some commentators (to include Chinese). My check of the map indicates your inclusion of Pakistan makes little sense due to the difficulties terrain will impose routing either rail or pipelines through Afghanistan or Pakistan -- not to mention that India would likely object to any construction by either China or Pakistan in Kashmir. Better and cheaper a straight shot to Iran which supplies about 12% of Chinese oil, a figure likely to rise. There's already a large Ahwaz-Tehran line and a smaller one goes on up to Neka on the Caspian and plans to extend it into Turkmenistan are underway. The Shiraz line could be extended to Chah Bahar but the terrain is horrendous -- probably be cheaper to run a new line through the desert from Neka. Such routing also offers some 'protection' from any possible future Indian bellicosity, a line through Pakistan could and likely would be interdicted; one in Iran is far less likely to be trifled with.

Yemen and Oman provide almost 25% of China's oil and sea shipment is thus obviously required but Qwadar offers no significant military and only slight commercial advantage. Not to mention the Baluchis are not one bit favorably disposed. Of course, Baluchs can be bribed -- but like the Afghans, they don't stay bribed... :wry:

For that matter, Chah Bahar -- where the Chinese are also involved in port construction and operation -- is even closer.

Speculation is fine -- but it isn't fact. Stage management is a worldwide skill. :wry:

Steve the Planner

10-07-2011, 03:34 AM

Harvey Corman, Blazing Saddles:
All that stands between us and that valuable property are the rightful owners.

Gwadar is intrinsically valuable as a port. It's trade area does not change by national status/control factors.

China's interest in basic Afghan resources is low-grade/future oriented. The railroad they will build will do the job. They will be happy as long as no one f----s with it.

Why would China want more hassles that produce no results. It ain't oil, gas or high grade ores.

Dayuhan

10-07-2011, 09:33 AM

Gwadar is intrinsically valuable as a port.

Gwadar's value as a port is actually fairly limited. It has good sea access to numerous ports, but on land it's nowhere: there's nothing for anyone to ship goods to and nothing there to ship out. As a point of transit it's too close to other established and much better equipped ports to have much relevance. Commercially viable, probably, but in no way the next big thing.

I think the talk of a Gwadar-China link is much overblown. Possible, yes, but of fairly marginal significance and nothing to get all fired up about. I very much doubt that the Chinese would wade into Afghanistan to advance that idea; it would be miles outside the parameters of any cost-benefit analysis.

davidbfpo

10-07-2011, 10:35 AM

Is the often cited phrase 'strategic depth' actually relevant in modern strategic thinking?

It appears to be only cited in the South Asian context. Secondly, apart from distance and consequent impact on travel time, what does Afghanistan have to offer?

From this armchair there is very little to offer, albeit with some very modern airfields added since 2001;); nor would any meaningful presence be sustainable locally.

From a puzzled civilian.:wry:

Dayuhan

10-07-2011, 11:19 AM

Is the often cited phrase 'strategic depth' actually relevant in modern strategic thinking?

Probably not, but what's going on in some quarters in Pakistan may not be modern strategic thinking.

I can see how the Pakistanis would be upset at the idea of an Indian foothold in Afghanistan. I can also see how they might relish the prospect of baiting India into a substantial military commitment there. India would find it extremely difficult to supply and maintain a substantial force in Afghanistan, and a guerrilla war in Afghanistan is one of the few strategic scenarios in which Pakistan and its unconventional allies have an odds-on chance of defeating the Indians.

Of course Pakistan will protest any Indian move into Afghanistan. Behind the protests, though, would they really object to having India in a position where they can do unto them as they've done to the Russians and the US?

Ray

10-08-2011, 05:10 PM

Afghanistan is not ‘strategic depth’ as is understood in pure military terms means the depth from the front line to the core area consisting of economic centres to including industrial complexes and complexes for military production and major cities.

When addressing what is strategic depth one has to take into account the vulnerability of these assets to an enemy offensive and the ability of this depth to absorb the offensive and yet not be unbalanced.

Afghanistan being a foreign country, thus, cannot be taken to be a ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan.

The interpretation has been adopted only to muddy the issue. It has gained credence amongst certain vested interests so as to obfuscate and promote their strategic interests. The appeal has been given ‘credibility’ incorrectly because Pakistan has been in the frontline, promoted by the US and with active assistance of China (Bear Trap by Brig Yousaf of the ISI) against the Soviet Union in the form of jihad.

It must be understood that any war in the name of jihad does not automatically mean that the areas where there is this so called jihad automatically becomes a part of the country sponsoring this so called jihad. If it were so then a large part of the world where terrorists have attacked including 9/11 would be a part of the country that sponsored the same! Obviously, that is a ridiculous assumption!

Therefore, by no stretch of imagination is Afghanistan (an independent and sovereign country) the ‘strategic depth’ of Pakistan. I will concede that distance and vested interests blurs comprehending the reality!

That apart, Afghanistan is a ‘strategic interest’ to Pakistan since keeping it under its control, keeps India and Russia at bay.

To keep my post short, both India and even Russia has interest in Afghanistan. It keeps the fundamentalist footprint at bay. For India, it is very important strategically to have Pakistan at bay in Afghanistan as it will stop the conduit of ‘unemployed’ pan Islamic terrorists from Kashmir as also will allow India access to the resources of CAR, which is being impeded by having Pakistan in between.

This brings in the issue of Chahbahar port in Iran. I read that China is building the same. As far as my knowledge goes, it is India which has built this port and has connected it with the Highway constructed by India in Afghanistan and onto the North toward CAR!

I have given the railways being constructed and the Chinese interest in the railways including construction.

I wonder if China is that altruist as to spread happiness around the world without self-interest, be it economic or strategic.

Ray

10-08-2011, 05:16 PM

Ray

10-08-2011, 05:32 PM

Am I to understand that Gwadar was built by China just to pander to Pakistan's desire?

It has no impact on Chinese economy or strategic interests?

jmm99

10-08-2011, 06:43 PM

Dayuhan

10-08-2011, 11:02 PM

As far as guerilla warfare against Indians in Afghanistan, it would be worth noting that a200km (124-mile) highway, costing about $85m, links Zaranj on the Iranian border with the main road between the cities of Herat, Kandahar and Kabul has been completed and handed over to Afghanistan.

And how many causalities should have been there if the Afghans were hostile to Indians, even though there must have been Pakistani encouragement?

In another thread there was some interesting comment to my statement of doing things the 'Indian way'.

Justified if post were doubting my contention.

Here is the proof of the pudding!

The officer who was the in-charge of this road project spoke to me.

He said much, but we will leave it at that!

The Taliban don't seem to be targeting infrastructure projects no matter who undertakes them.

If you really believe that India could take over the US role in Afghanistan, apply some magical "Indian way", and avoid the mess that seems to overtake everyone else in Afghanistan... well, be my guest. The rest of us will observe with much interest and little optimism.

Am I to understand that Gwadar was built by China just to pander to Pakistan's desire?

It has no impact on Chinese economy or strategic interests?

The question is not whether there are interests, but whether those interests are sufficient to justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements. The simple answer is that they aren't, at least not on China's part. What China stands to gain from these projects wouldn't begin to cover even a tiny fraction of the financial and ploitical cost of an effort to pacify Afghanistan.

Of course they may calculate costs and benefits as poorly as the Americans dd, but that seems unlikely. They don't have to play to a domestic political audience or pretend to be champions of democracy or anything else.

Not unlike the eternally proposed TAPI pipeline... potentially viable projects that some may find interesting enough to pursue, but not even close to being strategic game-changers that a nation would go to war to accomplish.

Ray

10-09-2011, 04:27 AM

Give your OIC road builder my regards and congrats. Is he an engineer ?

I'm guessing that the new road from Zaranj to Hwy 1 more or less follows the river and old road:

1508

At the edge but still within Pashtun-dominated territory. Good show.

What the Afghanis will do with it is another question.

Regards

Mike

Yes, he was a Col then and an Engineer. He was heading the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) out there building the road.

I believe the BRO is something like the Army Engineers in the US who do infrastructure constructions.

I will pass your congrats to him the next time. I am sure he will be delighted.

Regards

Ray

Ray

10-09-2011, 05:02 AM

The Taliban don't seem to be targeting infrastructure projects no matter who undertakes them.

If you really believe that India could take over the US role in Afghanistan, apply some magical "Indian way", and avoid the mess that seems to overtake everyone else in Afghanistan... well, be my guest. The rest of us will observe with much interest and little optimism.

Apparently, if India succeeds it does not appeal to you.

We are keen that the US and ISAF effort succeeds and do anything that helps that effort. While you are not optimistic about the India's effort, we are quite optimistic about the US and ISAF effort. We also understand that the US and ISAF are shouldering a greater effort than any other country.

The 'Indian way' is not really that bad as you imagine. The effort of the Indian UN contingent deployed in Aideed country and also to some extent in Afghanistan apparently worked/ is working.

The question is not whether there are interests, but whether those interests are sufficient to justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements. The simple answer is that they aren't, at least not on China's part. What China stands to gain from these projects wouldn't begin to cover even a tiny fraction of the financial and ploitical cost of an effort to pacify Afghanistan.

Of course they may calculate costs and benefits as poorly as the Americans dd, but that seems unlikely. They don't have to play to a domestic political audience or pretend to be champions of democracy or anything else.

Not unlike the eternally proposed TAPI pipeline... potentially viable projects that some may find interesting enough to pursue, but not even close to being strategic game-changers that a nation would go to war to accomplish.

The question is Interests and it would be naive to believe that a country's interests, in a contested land, will be without, as you put it, 'justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements'.

I have a contrary view to your over China's interest in the region since one has to see the manner in which the Chinese footprint is spreading around the world; yes, the world. China's presence is practically covering all the continents. It has not been a bed of roses for China everywhere and yet they continue to pursue their aims.

If you have read the post giving the links of Chinese interest to include the railway construction and why, you would have realised that it does not raise hackles and instead is looked upon favourably since all nations in the region are looking forward to improving their economies and hence the lives their people. Alongside, subtle political effort is also inbuilt.

Talking about the Chinese way of doing things, can you indicate any country that willing gives away its territory? The Pashtuns including the Taliban find the Durand Line non negotiable, and Pakistan is not ready to give up the Durand Line either. Yet, Pakistan willingly handed over Shaksgam to China.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Map_Kashmir_Standoff_2003.png/330px-Map_Kashmir_Standoff_2003.png
and Tajikistan agreed to cede part of its territory to China, days after neighboring Kyrgyzstan made a similar handover of land to China inspite of protests!
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-05-21/news/0205210249_1_china-beijing-last-week-tajikistan

China's ways cannot be equated with the manner how others operate or think!

I think you wondered why I brought in Han Culturism along with link into a post. I brought it in to explain that a People who starting with being just people North of Yellow River, could 'convert' peoples of such a huge land mass to believe that they are Hans and not what they were, does indicate how persuasive the Hans can be and how they can slowly assimilate all so much so they are led to believe that they are actually Hans!!

The manner they are extending their footprint is worth noticing and how they can disarm those who are being subjected to this extension!!

Dayuhan

10-09-2011, 07:47 AM

Apparently, if India succeeds it does not appeal to you.

It appeals to me a lot. The idea of having sex with Halle Berry appeals to me too. That doesn't mean I anticipate success in the pursuit of such fantasies. The probability of these things happening seems to me rather low.

While you are not optimistic about the India's effort, we are quite optimistic about the US and ISAF effort.

Optimistic meaning that you believe it will succeed? I can't imagine why, based on current conditions.

The 'Indian way' is not really that bad as you imagine. The effort of the Indian UN contingent deployed in Aideed country and also to some extent in Afghanistan apparently worked/ is working.

Applying it to an attempt to install or maintain a functioning government in Afghanistan, or to achiever stability and security in Afghanistan in any way, would be a quite different matter.

The question is Interests and it would be naive to believe that a country's interests, in a contested land, will be without, as you put it, 'justify prolonged, risky, and expensive military involvements'.

Of course. The question is what level of involvement is justified by the level of interest in any given place. There are areas deemed major strategic interests; these would justify a quite extensive involvement. There are also areas of more marginal interest, which would not justify significant involvement. That doesn't mean no interests exist in these areas, just that the degree of interest is insufficient to justify expensive and risky moves. The perceived probability of success and the potential for adverse outcome also figure into the calculation. I can't see that China has anything to gain in Afghanistan that would justify anything beyond a quite minimal commitment, especially given the high cost and low probability of successful outcome. I just can't imagine why they'd want to bother.

I have a contrary view to your over China's interest in the region since one has to see the manner in which the Chinese footprint is spreading around the world; yes, the world. China's presence is practically covering all the continents. It has not been a bed of roses for China everywhere and yet they continue to pursue their aims.

China has a presence in many places (as does the US), but it's an exaggeration to say that they are "covering all the continents". Unlike the US, the Chinese have been able to avoid making large military commitments part of that presence. That may largely be a matter of necessity - China has limited capacity to sustain large forces overseas - but it has also worked to China's advantage, just as American military adventurism has in many ways had a negative impact on American influence.

Ray

10-10-2011, 04:28 PM

It appeals to me a lot. The idea of having sex with Halle Berry appeals to me too. That doesn't mean I anticipate success in the pursuit of such fantasies. The probability of these things happening seems to me rather low.

I do find a whiff of sarcasm in your post. But then each to his own style.

I am delighted that India's success appeals to you a lot.

There is also suggestions of defeatism in your posts concerning the US and China. It appear you feel that the US will lose everywhere and it is better to let the remainder of the world rush past it to the finishing tape!!

I maybe wrong, but then that is what I find every time China is mentioned.

I believe there is a saying that a pessimist is never disappointed.

On pessimism, I remind of what Sir Winston Churchill had said:

and there are many people in England, and perhaps elsewhere, who seem to be unable to contemplate military operations for clear political objects, unless they can cajole themselves into the belief that their enemy are utterly and hopelessly vile. and I will take the licence to add 'weak'.

And the Allies won World War II! Felt a fantasy at one time!

Winning Iraq was also felt by some to be a fantasy!

Rabindranath Tagore, the first Indian Nobel Laureate, had said:
you can be friends to your enemy through a lack of character or words to that effect.

I daresay Afghanistan was ventured into and brave lives lost without character.

I have not understood your comment on your sex desire. However, Robert H. Schuller, the Reformed Church Minister had said:
“High achievers spot rich opportunities swiftly, make big decisions quickly and move into action immediately. Follow these principles and you can make your dreams come true.”

One has to be learn how to turn fantasies into reality, though I will concede that it is not feasible for the weak hearted. One has to have the gumption to stay the course rather than throw in the towel.

You may like to read the Indian experience of LIC/ COIN from an article posted SWJ

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/countering-insurgency-in-south-asia-three-approaches

In short, nothing is lost till the last bullet is fired or one turns tail.

I do not find that feeling with the US or ISAF.

Optimistic meaning that you believe it will succeed? I can't imagine why, based on current conditions.

What were the conditions at Dunkirk? The 'current situation' then at Dunkirk, reeked with demoralisation, despondency, and DEFEAT!!

Allies lost World War II?

Applying it to an attempt to install or maintain a functioning government in Afghanistan, or to achiever stability and security in Afghanistan in any way, would be a quite different matter.

Rome was not built in one day nor is establishing a Govt Instant Coffee. You may like to read
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/countering-insurgency-in-south-asia-three-approaches

Patience is the watchword. Since you like sexual examples, may I say that modern wars (which are not the conventional types) are not "Wham, Bang, Thank you, Ma'am" type of interactions!!

Of course. The question is what level of involvement is justified by the level of interest in any given place. There are areas deemed major strategic interests; these would justify a quite extensive involvement. There are also areas of more marginal interest, which would not justify significant involvement. That doesn't mean no interests exist in these areas, just that the degree of interest is insufficient to justify expensive and risky moves. The perceived probability of success and the potential for adverse outcome also figure into the calculation. I can't see that China has anything to gain in Afghanistan that would justify anything beyond a quite minimal commitment, especially given the high cost and low probability of successful outcome. I just can't imagine why they'd want to bother.

I would not like to guess or act as the 'last word' since that would be presumptuous.

However, one could glean aspirations of people from published works and statement of those who matter.

Here is one:

Does China Want to Be Top Superpower?

"China's grand goal in the 21st century is to become the world's No. 1 power."

These words were written by Liu Mingfu, a senior colonel in the People's Liberation Army, in a new book titled "China's Dream." .....

"To become the world's No. 1 has been China's century-old dream. It was this dream that inspired three generations of great Chinese leaders, from Sun Yat Sen to Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping," Liu wrote in a passage reflecting a growing nationalist sentiment shared by many Chinese. ......

"The competition between China and the United States will not take the form of a world war or a cold war. It will not be like a 'shooting duel' or a 'boxing match' but more like a 'track and field' competition. It will be like a protracted 'marathon.'"......
http://abcnews.go.com/International/china-replace-us-top-superpower/story?id=9986355

Again, it does prove my contention of Han Culturalism, which you dismissed perfunctorily as irrelevant.

You may try to read the undermentioned link too to understand Liu's comment To become the world's No. 1 has been China's century-old dream. It was this dream that inspired three generations of great Chinese leaders, from Sun Yat Sen to Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping," and correlate to the larger picture:

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A18h7w/AnEthnohistoricalDic/resources/98.htm

China has a presence in many places (as does the US), but it's an exaggeration to say that they are "covering all the continents". Unlike the US, the Chinese have been able to avoid making large military commitments part of that presence. That may largely be a matter of necessity - China has limited capacity to sustain large forces overseas - but it has also worked to China's advantage, just as American military adventurism has in many ways had a negative impact on American influence.

Apparently you do not read posts in detail, for if you did you would realise I spoke of the Chinese way of doing things i.e. Yongxiabianyi, which means rather than using military might, use other persuasive means. I also mentioned that without a war or show of military might, China ensured that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan cede part of their territory to China and Pakistan cede Shaksgam!(and I gave links too!)

If one can have his cake and eat it too, where is the necessity to use military might? Or peppering the world with military bases?

One must also understand the Chinese game of 'Go' to understand the Chinese strategy and policies. The object of the game is to use one's stones to surround a larger portion of the board than the opponent. Once placed on the board, stones cannot be moved, though they can be removed if they are captured. When a game concludes, the controlled points (territory) are counted along with captured stones to determine who has more points. Games may also be won by resignation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29

One cannot superimpose an Occidental mindset to understand how the Oriental mindset would react. Fortunately, there are many westerners who understand, to a great extent, how the Oriental mind works.

China's footprint is on all continents including Antarctica! And it does not mean military footprints when economic and social footprints do most satisfactorily!

I confess that I do pepper my posts with links and quotations, but then since I do not make policies or a knowall, I rather understand and use published material and quotes of those who make policies and who are close to the powers that be.

Dayuhan

10-10-2011, 11:14 PM

There is also suggestions of defeatism in your posts concerning the US and China. It appear you feel that the US will lose everywhere and it is better to let the remainder of the world rush past it to the finishing tape!!

Hardly. I'm not terrified of China, nor even marginally afraid of China, and I certainly see no Chinese "threat" that needs to be "countered" by military means or by some ill-advised effort to restrain the Chinese economy or Chinese access to resources. If we're worried about competitiveness, ther US needs to look within and address our own economic issues, not to fret over what the Chinese are doing.

I have not understood your comment on your sex desire.

It was simply meant to demonstrate the difference between approval and optimism. One may think an event desirable and still acknowledge that it's not likely to happen.

However, Robert H. Schuller, the Reformed Church Minister had said: “High achievers spot rich opportunities swiftly, make big decisions quickly and move into action immediately. Follow these principles and you can make your dreams come true.”

If we're talking about Afghanistan, this illustrates the problem rather well. There is no rich opportunity, neither is there any pressing threat, not for the US, not for China, not for India. There's nothing that makes it worth the effort. What you see as a lack of "gumption" is purely a lack of motivation. Sure, if there was some huge prize to be won or some existential threat to the US, there would be a way to prevail. There isn't. There's nothing to make it worth the cost and effort, therefore little will to persist, therefore little ground for optimism.

The US and China have virtually nothing to gain or lose in Afghanistan. India might have a little more... but really, India survived a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan before, and it would survive it again. What reason would you have that would be sufficiently compelling to lead you into that particular pit?

You may like to read the Indian experience of LIC/ COIN from an article posted SWJ

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/countering-insurgency-in-south-asia-three-approaches

I've read it. I see no relevance at all to a potential Indian involvement in Afghanistan. Fighting an insurgency in your own country and fighting an insurgency in a foreign country - especially given the logistic miseries and escalation potential that Indian involvement in Afghanistan would entail - are worlds apart

In short, nothing is lost till the last bullet is fired or one turns tail.

I do not find that feeling with the US or ISAF.

What were the conditions at Dunkirk? The 'current situation' then at Dunkirk, reeked with demoralisation, despondency, and DEFEAT!!

Allies lost World War II?

The difference in two words: existential threat. WWII posed one, in reality to Britain, by perception (likely inaccurate, but that's another story) to the US. Afghanistan does not pose one, not even close. Nothing of significance to be lost or won, why pour lives and treasure into it?

Patience is the watchword. Since you like sexual examples, may I say that modern wars (which are not the conventional types) are not "Wham, Bang, Thank you, Ma'am" type of interactions!!

They are not that way be cause we choose not to make them that way. There was no reason for the US to mess with trying to install a government in Afghanistan. The provocation from Afghanistan - 9/11 - called precisely for a ""Wham, Bam, Thank you, Ma'am" type of interaction: a vigorous punitive raid. Go in, make one point - we don't want to rule you, but if you mess with us we will kill you - and get out.

China's footprint is on all continents including Antarctica! And it does not mean military footprints when economic and social footprints do most satisfactorily!

So is America's in case you haven't noticed. I am well aware of Han culturalism and the supposed "Oriental mindset": I've lived my entire adult life in the Orient. I decline to panic.

Ray

10-11-2011, 04:39 AM

Dayuhan,

You have replied in generalities and without addressing any point with cogent issues.

It is not an ongoing threat alone which drives national policies. All facets of geopolitics are considered and visualised over short, medium and long term windows to identify actual threats as also potential threats. Based on such analyses, are national policies tailored. And that includes ensuring that potential threats are kept under control, and if possible, weak.

The USSR was a challenge to the US and it would be naive to believe that the USSR collapsed under its own weight. Likewise, China is an open challenge to the US. There is enough evidence in the open forum of China's intent to be the unchallenged power of the world replacing the US, a position that the US has, at great expense, built for herself. If that is not a threat, even if some feel it is just an issue of national ego, then what is?

Why do nations jockey amongst each other to be one up? If there were no potential threat, then why the jockeying? Are Muslim countries a threat to the US? They are no match either militarily or economically to the US. And yet........!

If the threat is what Muslim fundamentalists potentially can do to the US, how is it different from what China is already doing to the US? The methods maybe different.

Indeed the US should look within for the causes of her economic woes, but is it to suggest that it is solely US' doing?

However, that does not mean that one cannot have a view that China is no threat to any country and is totally at peace with the world. One can always have contrary views. Noam Chomsky comes to mind!

A catch all observation that Afghanistan has no potential for interest of any country to include US, China or India is too sweeping an assertion. In a resource depleting world, every country has potential for interests and it is a dog eat dog world! That leads to geostrategic interest and potential conflict zones.

Let us go back to the evolution of Threat Perceptions and link it with the dog eat dog competitiveness for supremacy and desire to corner and control strategic minerals. The pennies should fall as to the importance of a nation that is comparatively virgin in exploitation of its natural resources.

Here is some news reports that disproves that Afghanistan has no potential for the US, China or India or for that matter, any other country.

China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches
Although the U.S. government has spent more than $940 billion on the conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.

The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. officials and American geologists have found an estimated $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits that have yet to be exploited in the country. The paper said a Pentagon report called Afghanistan potentially "the Saudi Arabia of lithium,"
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/14/china-us-afghanistan-mineral-mining/

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

That apart, the strategic importance of Afghanistan for many countries in the neighbourhood and beyond has been thrashed so often, that one does not require recall.

The issue that India had survived a Taliban Govt previously is missing the wood for the trees. The fundamentalism is not of paramount concern, it is access into CAR, into mining in Afghanistan and ensuring that there is a neutral govt that does not operate to India's disadvantage.

If US intervention in Afghanistan was merely 'to teach a lesson', then troops were not required on ground. Relentless cluster bombing and daisy cutters would have fit the bill. Therefore, it would not be wrong to surmise that there was more to it than what meets the eye. I daresay that the US Govt and its military are not incompetent, notwithstanding what some may like to portray.

In fact, one cannot fault the basic tactics adopted by the US and ISAF in Afghanistan. They are time tested. Where the problem lies is that the mechanism to prevent ingress of the Taliban into Afghanistan from bases in Pakistan is not in place. Unless that is halted, the cycle only repeats itself.

True that Afghanistan does not pose a physical threat to the US, given that it is not a neighbour. However, neither did Pakistan when 9/11 happened. By that logic, Syria, Libya, Iran, Hizbollah also does not pose any threat to the US and yet.........!!

Fighting insurgency in one's own country and fighting the same in another is not an issue as far as logistics is concerned, if one views it holitistically taking into account the economic strength, military wherewithal, different ROE, and the necessity to remain the world's No 1, etc.

One wonders if it is being suggested that the US goes back into time to the Monroe Doctrine.

Indeed, the US footprint is global, but the US does not make any bones about it or its intent. That is the difference. China, given the Han Culturalism, wants to be No 1, but is coy about their intentions.

Dayuhan

10-11-2011, 12:08 PM

The USSR was a challenge to the US and it would be naive to believe that the USSR collapsed under its own weight. Likewise, China is an open challenge to the US. There is enough evidence in the open forum of China's intent to be the unchallenged power of the world replacing the US, a position that the US has, at great expense, built for herself. If that is not a threat, even if some feel it is just an issue of national ego, then what is?

The USSR did collapse under the weight of its own unsustainable economic system, and its own paranoia.

Being "the unchallenged power of the world" hasn't done the US any good, why should the US need that role to continue? A multipolar world is a far better idea, and prosperity needn't be a zero-sum game. Of course the US, Europe, China, and many others will seek to prosper, and of course they will compete economically. What's wrong with that?

If the threat is what Muslim fundamentalists potentially can do to the US, how is it different from what China is already doing to the US? The methods maybe different.

China isn't doing anything to the US.

Indeed the US should look within for the causes of her economic woes, but is it to suggest that it is solely US' doing?

Yes.

Let us go back to the evolution of Threat Perceptions and link it with the dog eat dog competitiveness for supremacy and desire to corner and control strategic minerals. The pennies should fall as to the importance of a nation that is comparatively virgin in exploitation of its natural resources.

None of the mineral resources claimed in Afghanistan are in any way strategic. The whole "mineral riches" story was old news, floated as new news in a pretty ineffective effort to convince the US public that there was something worth fighting for in Afghanistan. The article you cite shows just how silly it got:

a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.

Of course they'll go to Russia and China, it wouldn't make any sense to send them anywhere else. Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that a US company could be persuaded to invest in mining in Afghanistan, they'd still sell the stuff to Russia or China... I think we all know by now that resources extracted by a US company don't necessarily go to the US!

Look at this list with half a grain of common sense. Argentina is already the Saudi Arabia of Lithium. The world's leading cobalt producer is Canada. Chile, the US, and Peru lead in copper. These products have a very low value/bulk ratio, and there is no way on earth that they could be sent from Afghanistan to a port, loaded, and sent to the US with any hope of being price-competitive with product from established, efficient producers in the western hemisphere. The US is not a huge player in primary industry and has limited needs for these commodities, and they can source everything they need and more from much closer and much less risky producers.

When you add in the cost of transport and energy infrastructure - which would have to be provided by the investor - and the enormous political and security risks, there's no point at all in US investment in Afghan mining. Even if you extracted the entire hypothetical $1 trillion, when you pull off production costs and the costs already sunk to date in security, it wouldn't be worth it.

That apart, the strategic importance of Afghanistan for many countries in the neighbourhood and beyond has been thrashed so often, that one does not require recall.

I've often seen that "strategic importance" proclaimed, but I've never seen the proclamations effectively supported.

The issue that India had survived a Taliban Govt previously is missing the wood for the trees. The fundamentalism is not of paramount concern, it is access into CAR, into mining in Afghanistan and ensuring that there is a neutral govt that does not operate to India's disadvantage.

Why would India want to bother with access to the CAR through Pakistan and Afghanistan, when anything they can get from CAR - or Afghanistan - is available elsewhere with a lot less trouble and effort?

If US intervention in Afghanistan was merely 'to teach a lesson', then troops were not required on ground. Relentless cluster bombing and daisy cutters would have fit the bill. Therefore, it would not be wrong to surmise that there was more to it than what meets the eye. I daresay that the US Govt and its military are not incompetent, notwithstanding what some may like to portray.

"Relentless cluster bombing and daisy cutters" would not have fit the bill, owing to a deficiency in targets. What happened was mission creep. The initial, rational mission to remove the Taliban from power and hunt down those responsible for 9/11 crept into a subsequent irrational mission, devoid of any strategic or economic justification, to rearrange the way Afghanistan is governed.

In fact, one cannot fault the basic tactics adopted by the US and ISAF in Afghanistan. They are time tested. Where the problem lies is that the mechanism to prevent ingress of the Taliban into Afghanistan from bases in Pakistan is not in place. Unless that is halted, the cycle only repeats itself.

Where the problem lies is that the goal of establishing stable pro-western governance in Afghanistan requires a greater commitment of time and resources than the US public is willing to countenance. That deficit of will is a consequence of the rational and accurate assessment that there is no threat or potential gain involved that is anywhere nearly worth the cost.

True that Afghanistan does not pose a physical threat to the US, given that it is not a neighbour. However, neither did Pakistan when 9/11 happened. By that logic, Syria, Libya, Iran, Hizbollah also does not pose any threat to the US and yet.........!!

Syria, Libya, and Hizbollah are not threats to the US. Iran potentially is, only to the extent that they could interfere with the production and transport of Gulf oil and send oil prices to an economically destructive level.

Fighting insurgency in one's own country and fighting the same in another is not an issue as far as logistics is concerned, if one views it holitistically taking into account the economic strength, military wherewithal, different ROE, and the necessity to remain the world's No 1, etc.

Fighting insurgency in another country is entirely different from fighting it in one's own country. For starters, you have to deal with the host country government and military, often as big a pain in the ass as dealing with insurgents. And that's just the beginning, a realistic list would go on for pages.

"The necessity to remain the world's No 1"... not sure what that's supposed to mean.

Indeed, the US footprint is global, but the US does not make any bones about it or its intent. That is the difference. China, given the Han Culturalism, wants to be No 1, but is coy about their intentions.

The Chinese desire to be "No 1" bothers me not in the least. As I've said elsewhere, I'm more concerned about the possibility of economic collapse and major social unrest in China than about the possibility that China will swallow the world.

Ray

10-11-2011, 02:51 PM

Views on the strategic importance of Afghanistan from a variety of sources.

A point of view (briefly made) from the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group.

AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GEO-STRATEGIC AND GEO-POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers32/paper3139.html

Afghanistan and Central Asia lie in the heart of the landmass extending from European Russia to China which is important to Washington who is worried about the recent joint military maneuvers between China and Russia. These reasons at least make much more sense than the terrorist scenario we have been expected to believe. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, Dick Cheney agrees with Achcar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea#Current_issues
http://rob-payne.blogspot.com/2009/09/afghanistans-strategic-importance.html

This is an article that appeared first in The Jamestown Foundation.

Afghanistan's strategic location between Central and South Asia is of immense geostrategic significance for the landlocked countries of Central Asia and its prosperity is inextricably linked to the security situation in Central and South Asia. Immense energy resources and strategic location on China's western frontier have led to Central Asia being referred to as China's dingwei (Lebensraum) [1].......

ndia's recent overtures toward Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia and the development of close ties with these countries appear to be aimed at weakening China's right pincer and denying Pakistan a secure western frontier. Afghanistan figures prominently, therefore, in Chinese and Indian foreign policies. In fact, the decision to establish the first-ever Indian military outpost on foreign soil at the Farkhor air base in Tajikistan, just two kilometers from the Tajik-Afghan border, could well be perceived as an attempt to reduce the impact of the Chinese encirclement.

According to a Chinese military journal, India's forays into Afghanistan and the Central Asian arena are "designed to achieve four objectives: contain Pakistan; enhance energy security; combat terrorism; and pin down China's development" [3]. As in the past, Afghanistan has once again emerged as the "strategic knot" for the region's security.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JE16Ad03.html

Indeed, US interests derive, first of all, from Central Asia’s proximity
to Russia and China. American involvement in Central Asia is primarily
strategic in nature, i.e., not primarily associated with access to energy or an
attempt to democratize the region, as is often alleged......

The United States and the West in general find themselves increasingly dependent
on the continued stability and development of the Central Eurasian
region. The United States is heavily invested in Afghanistan, and its engagement
there and in Central Asian states is a long-term endeavor.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/08spring/blank.pdf

The last indicates US strategic interest in Afghanistan since any spilling over of terrorism into Central Asia will jeopardise the US strategic interest in Central Asia.

Ray

10-11-2011, 03:04 PM

China and South Asia- An Indian Perspective

The evolution of China’s South Asia policy needs to be studied not in a vacuum, but in relation to that country’s overall foreign policy framework; the main determinant of Beijing’s external approach has always been its domestic priorities in different periods. In fact, the domestic and foreign policy linkages have continued to be a part of the statecraft of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) ever since Chairman Mao Zedong proclaimed founding of the nation in October 1949, saying that ‘China has stood up’. ...

a recalibration of Beijing’s attitude towards the region has been gradually taking place in pursuance of that pre-requisite and its outcome has been a “Balanced South Asia Policy of the PRC Under a New Situation”, providing for China’s development of relations with South Asian nations.....

The Chinese claims that the PRC’s South Asia policy has become balanced is open to dispute. The recalibrations noticed have only been symbolic, lacking in substance as there has been no fundamental change in China’s policy of treating Pakistan as an ally, in order to neutralize the impact on the region coming from India’s ascendancy. There has been no let up in Beijing’s arms supply to Islamabad, despite the knowledge that Pakistan cannot guarantee the non-use of Chinese arms against India. Also, China could increase its strategic presence in other countries in India’s neighborhood in the background of its increased economic aid to the latter, a development not missed by New Delhi. .....

In specific terms, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan and South China Sea Islands stand listed under the ‘core interest’ category. Chinese media have included strategic resources and trade routes in the list. As a result, China has come to adopt an uncompromising position on issues concerning the country’s sovereignty. Pointers include China’s growing naval activism in the South and East China seas, consistent hard line stand on the Sino-Indian border and the Dalai Lama issues, resistance to Yuan revaluation demand, action on Google, the stiff anti-US positions on issues like Tibet, Taiwan and climate change and efforts to expand influence abroad through the use of military and nuclear assistance. .....

Worrisome to India is the latest situation regarding China’s position on Kashmir. China is taking up road and railway projects designed to link Pakistan and China via Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) where Chinese troops are reportedly deployed ostensibly for construction work. As noted analyst Mr B. Raman puts it, the reported infrastructure projects undertaken by the Chinese military and nuclear establishments in Pakistan Occupied Gilgit-Baltistan region, may become strategically important to the Chinese army in the event of another conflict with India; in particular, the Karakorum Highway could be useful for China as an overland route for moving missiles and spare parts to Pakistan. Also, there appears to be a deeper meaning to the issuing of stapled visas by Beijing to Kashmiri Indians, indicating that China is shedding its traditional neutrality on the Kashmir issue. Quoting Mr B. Raman again, this new nuanced position on Kashmir could mean a dilution of China’s past stand of accepting Kashmir as a de-facto part of India, while at the same time treating POK including Gilgit-Baltistan region as de-facto and de-jure parts of Pakistan. Is China’s stand a quid pro quo for Pakistan’s help to Beijing in fighting against Uighur separatism in Xinjiang? Is Beijing developing future options for questioning India’s locus standi to negotiate with China on the territory in Ladakh ceded by Pakistan to the PRC? The remarks of Indian Prime Minister that China “could use India’s ‘soft underbelly’ of Kashmir to keep India in low level equilibrium”, demonstrate how serious these questions are. .

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers43%5Cpaper4294.html

A more assertive China looms on the horizon, now that it has "Peacefully Risen".

Ray

10-11-2011, 04:21 PM

Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China (NPC) visited Maldives between 28-30 May 2011. This is the first visit of a top Chinese legislator to the island state.During the visit, both countries agreed on enhancing bilateral relations through closer cooperation between respective parliaments. Maldives was part of Wu’s official goodwill visits to Namibia, Angola, and South Africa.

This visit was preceded by a five day visit of Ibrahim Hussein
Zaki, a leader of Maldivian Democratic Party and special envoy of the President to China in the second week of May (9-13). Zaki met Li Jinhua, vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
(CPPCC).

http://www.icwa.in/pdfs/vwpointWu.pdf

Ray

10-11-2011, 04:24 PM

China’s Strategic Eggs in South Asia

China is not a South Asian power, but it has been seeking to build up for itself a strong South Asian presence which could cater to its strategic needs in the long term.

2. It has made inroads in the South Asian countries in recent years by taking advantage of their hunger for the development of their infrastructure and their requirement of financial assistance for major infrastructure projects and for the exploitation of their natural resources.

3. While India too has been helping these countries in these fields, China has definitely had an advantage over India due to its large cash reserve built up from its huge trade surpluses and the reservoir of excellent construction engineers with experience in infrastructure building which it has built up over the years.

4. The fact that China has no contentious issues affecting its bilateral relations with these countries --- as against many contentious issues in the relations of India with its neighbours--- has also worked to its advantage.

5. The Chinese policy in the South Asian region has a mix of the strategic and the opportunistic dimensions--- that is, working for carefully calculated long-term strategic objectives while not missing short and medium term opportunities that come its way. One sees the strategic dimension in the case of its relations with Pakistan. One sees a mix of the two in its relations with other South Asian countries.

6. Its relations with Pakistan, which continue to enjoy the highest priority, are driven by a strong strategic calculus. That calculus arises from its perceived need for a second front to keep India preoccupied.

More at:

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers46%5Cpaper4595.html

There are 40 points given.

Mr B Raman is no greenhorn in this field or an armchair strategist!

But then one has to accept that this peaceful rise of China, right?

Is it immoral for the countries of the region or even the US to be concerned?

If China's claim that the US is encircling her is taken as valid by their admirers, is it wrong for others to be worried and not consider it a threat that China is encircling them?

Or is there a different set of rules for China and another for others?

Strategy is not one event agenda. It encompasses many issues and it is over time. One should not go overboard or despondent over single issue but look at the issue holistically and in time slots of short term, medium and long term.

Iraq and Afghanistan, as far as the US is concerned, to my mind, is not a knee jerk reaction. There is more to it than what meets the eye. And I don't think that the US Govt or its planners, civil and military, are people who have no insight. If they were then the US would not be where it is!

If indeed, gold, cobalt, lithium etc are not important to industry and the economic good of a country, I sure would like to know how much of it is used in the US (benchmark) and what is its shortfall, if any or its over-abundance of the same!

Or should they believe in the propaganda that China is a benign nation and this is all in the goodness of China's "Peaceful Rise"?

Neville Chamberlain comes to mind!

How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjpXX1rNdhBJM8AQ5nbESQ_D3J8AccG FMDmAdf7G0_zW2aP_iNIA

Dayuhan

10-12-2011, 08:27 AM

Views on the strategic importance of Afghanistan from a variety of sources.

All I'm seeing here is repetition of the same old mantras, with little credible justification. These arguments simply don't hold up under any kind of scrutiny, especially the circular reasoning contained in the assumption that there has to be some strategic/economic motive because otherwise the US wouldn't be there. And really, what's the point of looking at a Chomsky opinion seriously? We all know already what's going to emerge from that fringe. The line about how "Washington is trying to set a military vice around the Caspian Basin" is too stupid to even warrant a response, for reasons anyone with access to a map can see..

Is it immoral for the countries of the region or even the US to be concerned?

Morality is not in the picture in any way. Concern is reasonable, hysteria is not.

If China's claim that the US is encircling her is taken as valid by their admirers, is it wrong for others to be worried and not consider it a threat that China is encircling them?

Both claims are exaggerated for political purposes. This is very normal.

Iraq and Afghanistan, as far as the US is concerned, to my mind, is not a knee jerk reaction. There is more to it than what meets the eye. And I don't think that the US Govt or its planners, civil and military, are people who have no insight. If they were then the US would not be where it is!

People outside the US, unfamiliar with the way the US government operates, often assume that there must be "more to it than what meets the eye", and drive themselves to distraction looking for the vast plan. There usually isn't one. The vast plan is to get re-elected, and that means pandering to the political pressure of the moment. The US doesn't do vast plans or long-term strategy, everything in the political structure mitigates against it.

If indeed, gold, cobalt, lithium etc are not important to industry and the economic good of a country, I sure would like to know how much of it is used in the US (benchmark) and what is its shortfall, if any or its over-abundance of the same!

Nobody said they weren't important. They just aren't scarce, and supply within stable countries in the western hemisphere is more than sufficient to meet US needs far into the future. American companies are risk-averse: they know that the return horizon on mining investments is extremely long and US government commitments are extremely unreliable. Would you make a 20-year deal with a government that may not be around in 20 months, and is likely to be replaced by a bunch of guys who think your head would look good on a stake? Why do you think there's been so little interest from US companies in bidding for oil contracts in Iraq, except as minority members of diversified consortia? Too much risk in it and the terms are unattractive. The chance of attracting major US investment in Afghan mining ventures approaches zero.

Or should they believe in the propaganda that China is a benign nation and this is all in the goodness of China's "Peaceful Rise"?

Neither benign nor malignant, neither goodness nor evil. Just another power relationship that needs to be managed... with concern, yes, but not with panic, hysteria, or the sort of exaggerated threat responses that are so eagerly manipulated by politicians. Rally behind your leaders and don't look in their closets, for we are threatened from outside by the sinister ones and we must all stick together... one of the oldest scams in political history.

Ray

10-12-2011, 05:09 PM

Ah! of course.

Everyone is wrong and hysterical!

And every article, commentary around the world and think tanks including the US and the Congressional Inquiries are totally bosh!

Even the Chinese who have mentioned that there is a plot to encircle them reported in their print media have no idea of what they are saying!! Nor does Col Liu know the Han attitude (mentioned in an earlier post). And Deng Xiao Peng was merely hallucinating when he propounded his '24 Character Strategy", while the Chinese Defence Policy of 'Doctrine of Pre-emption and Surprise' is a Chinese fable! Lt Gen Zheng, the Chief of PLAAF had said that without a pre-emptive strategy, the chance of a PLA victory was limited. I presume that too is silly and stupid.

I presume that these people of the US Congress are also talking through their hat!

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan has oil and gas reserves that may permit it to be self-sufficient in energy and gain revenue through exports. Estimates of Central Asian oil reserves vary widely, but are usually said to rival those of the North Sea or Alaska. More accurate estimates of oil and gas resources await wider exploration and the drilling of test wells.
Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.
In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 12, 1998

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm

I hope it will not be too much of a licence on my part to believe that the US Congressmen and Secretaries/ Asst Secretaries know their onions; or do laymen and armchair experts the last word on US policies.

The US doesn't do vast plans or long-term strategy, everything in the political structure mitigates against it.

US does not plan ahead in time blocks of short term, medium term or long term?

There are no professionals in the US? All are politicians seeking survival?

That is news!

Have you read National energy Policy or Defence Policy Guidelines that was formulated during Dic.k Cheney's tenure as the Secretary of Defence?

Or were they also talking through their hat.

How is force structuring and modernisation done? By Political Knee jerks?

I get the impression that you alone know what is the US mindset, policy and what is happening.......and yet you claim you are far away in the Orient!!

Having said that, I will recuse myself from the discussion since there is nothing worthwhile to know because, as per you, everyone who should know actually knows nothing and are merely sinecure and fooling the world being in positions of power!

In short:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

right?

Ken White

10-12-2011, 07:04 PM

And every article, commentary around the world and think tanks including the US and the Congressional Inquiries are totally bosh!Not totally but pretty much; Congressional inquiries are common and laughable -- they are designed to give the appearance of great concern while eliciting votes. Most Think Tanks do not; Most news reports take their cue from US media whixh is among the worlds' most inept.
Even the Chinese who have mentioned that there is a plot to encircle them reported in their print media have no idea of what they are saying!! ...I presume that too is silly and stupid.Not necessarily but I would remind you that the US and the USSR misread each other for over 50 years...
US does not plan ahead in time blocks of short term, medium term or long term?...There are no professionals in the US? All are politicians seeking survival?...That is news!The news is not that the US does nor have such people. It does and many of them are quite knowledgeable -- the news is that they often disagree on things and that our form of government is by design adversarial, slow and full of checks and balances. We bicker and fiddle a lot. An awful lot. We only tend to focus totally during existential threat periods and we have had few of those. Our foreign policy is almost always based solely on US domestic politics. We have been able to afford that and a clunky, slow governmental process in the past and will almost certainly continue to do so. Whether that is wise today remains to be seen.
Have you read National energy Policy or Defence Policy Guidelines that was formulated during Dic.k Cheney's tenure as the Secretary of Defence?...Or were they also talking through their hat.I read it back then, it was overstated and struck me as yet another exercise in policy skewing that would not work. Dick Cheney quite often talked through his hat, both as SecDef and VP. Most politicians around the world seem to do so in my observation.
How is force structuring and modernisation done? By Political Knee jerks?More than any other one thing, yes. Amazing it works as well as it does.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

right?As always... ;)

Ray

10-12-2011, 08:58 PM

Thanks.

It gives me great insight that the US does not know what it does and is staffed with near incompetent, ponderous people at the helm of affairs, if I have understood correctly.

It does leave me uncomfortable.

Though I will confess that it was not the impression I got when I interacted with the US military personnel.

I thought they knew their job and missions.

But then since so many of you feel that the US policies are a huge sham and rudderless, so be it!

Maybe it is better for many nations in the world to change boats, while the going is still good!

Ken White

10-12-2011, 10:06 PM

It gives me great insight that the US does not know what it does and is staffed with near incompetent, ponderous people at the helm of affairs, if I have understood correctly.While that is of course sometimes true, issue dependent, most often we know in three or four variations what should be done. Any one choice of a course of action would likely be quite successful. The problem arises when our political milieu which strives for compromise interjects itself and we end up picking feature of two or more of those COA and the combination, as is always true of compromise, will not be as good as any single would have been. When confronted with real -- and serious -- emergencies we can and do act decisively but under ordinary circumstance, i.e 98% or more of the time in our view, we tend to putter a bit. It's a design feature and, as I said, has worked fairly well in the past -- I (and others) are not sure it's going to be adequate for the future due to changes in the speed and ease of communication and travel.
It does leave me uncomfortable.It leaves most of the world uncomfortable because what we do or do not do and how those things occur can have far reaching impacts.
Though I will confess that it was not the impression I got when I interacted with the US military personnel...I thought they knew their job and missions.They did and do but they inhabit a closed circuit, demanding heirarchial society within the broader far more open and less 'disciplined' (for lack of a better word) American society, the one in which the government operates. *
But then since so many of you feel that the US policies are a huge sham and rudderless, so be it!No one has said that, there is no sham (other than that practiced by politicians in every nation or that done deliberately by us to divert or disrupt...) and not rudderless, just with several steersmen.

Remember, that 'several steersman' bit is by design. Unlike Parliamentary democracies where the majority party(ies) ARE the government, here the parties most frequently split governance with all that implies. Many of us regret that check and balance thing intrudes on other nations but internally, we wouldn't change it. :cool:

As an aside, those aforementioned military folks { * ) really, really get frutrated with that competing steersmen bit -- not least due to the adverse impacts on organization and force structure, not to mention missions...:rolleyes:
Maybe it is better for many nations in the world to change boats, while the going is still good!I've been hearing that since 1947 when I was old enough to start paying attention. As I moved about the world in uniform and out over the next 50 years, I heard it again and again. Often from the same nations for a second or third time. I've heard that several times from Indians and IIRC the first time I heard something along that line from an Indian military person was from Major-General Indar Jit Rikhye in 1965 who was quite scathing about the US in general and its conduct in the Congo and Dominican Republic (both places he and I bumped into each other) in particular.

Of course, he later retired -- to the US -- and lived here until his death in 2007... ;)

Dayuhan

10-13-2011, 12:49 AM

Everyone is wrong and hysterical!

No, but everyone who is hysterical is wrong, or at least ineffective.

And every article, commentary around the world and think tanks including the US and the Congressional Inquiries are totally bosh!

Not all of them... maybe 97%, though. There's an incredible amount of nonsense on the Internet, and a huge majority of what passes for "analysis" starts with a conclusion and works backwards to try and justify it. A huge amount of skepticism and a whole lot of grains of salt are called for.

Even the Chinese who have mentioned that there is a plot to encircle them reported in their print media have no idea of what they are saying!!

Of course they know what they are saying. That doesn't mean it's true, or even that the people on top believe it. Every tyrant needs an external threat to run up the flagpole: if people are afraid of the other and convinced that they need a strong government to defend them, they don't look too closely at what that strong government is doing to them.

I presume that these people of the US Congress are also talking through their hat!

That's always a valid presumption when discussing the US Congress, but even were it not, there is nothing in this list of interests that requires or would be significantly advanced by having a US military presence bogged down in Afghanistan.

I hope it will not be too much of a licence on my part to believe that the US Congressmen and Secretaries/ Asst Secretaries know their onions; or do laymen and armchair experts the last word on US policies.

You'd have a hard time finding an American citizen to agree with you on that. As Ken says, US foreign policy is driven by domestic political imperatives. That's what US Congressmen know, though they step on their equipment on a regular basis in that field as well.

US does not plan ahead in time blocks of short term, medium term or long term?

Short term, sometimes. Medium term more rarely, and the plans often change midstream. Long term - meaning beyond typical political tenure - hardly at all, and what plans are made are generally ignored.

A lot of people outside the US find the oddities and vagaries of US policymaking frustrating and incomprehensible, but before jumping ship you might want to consider that the outcome is surprisingly resilient. After all, the Soviet system was extremely conducive to long term planning and policy continuity, and who was the last man standing in that showdown?

Re China, with a hat tip to Surferbeetle it may interest you to note that Credit Suisse recently revised its estimate of the non-performing loans held by Chinese banks from 4.5%-5.0% to 8.0%-12.0%, which ""would work out to 65–100% of banks’ equity" (Chinese banks run very high loan-to-asset ratios). What does that tell you about the unstoppable Chinese economic juggernaut and the invincibility of continuity and central planning?

Ray

10-13-2011, 05:47 AM

Washington: Projecting an image, like power, can be tricky for a country because you should neither hype nor hide the real picture for maximum impact. The image can be designed to help achieve larger political and strategic goals. China has achieved a near-perfect balance where its aura-building bolsters its diplomatic agenda in the US and elsewhere. Americans feel a combination of fear, awe and reverence when they deal with the Middle Kingdom.

China has managed to create a parallel universe in the American mind, which it inhabits alone, largely unhampered by history or disputes or neighbours. To the extent they exist, they do so at their own peril. Chinese “sensitivities” must always be considered, or China will become an adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy no one wants to contemplate. This is the mantra of many influential American academics and policy experts, the chanting of which is encouraged by Beijing and its vast network of friends. If China throws out a nifty slogan (Peaceful Rise in the 1990s) to obfuscate intentions, it is quickly adopted as part of the local discourse......

A US expert on China is rarely interested in India and reads history from one perspective - the Chinese.......

The director of China Studies at Johns Hopkins last month dismissed the spike in Chinese aggressive behaviour as "the unskilled period" of diplomacy which was already over. He clearly wasn't aware of the many recent instances involving India. He stressed the US was in no economic shape to fashion the new Asian order by showing up at what was essentially China's party. In other words, let China "deal" with Asia, a line that Beijing is happy to promote......

The evolution of this China-friendly narrative is not entirely natural or innocent. Beijing exercises extreme discretion and leverage over US academics it permits into the country. They go to officially sanctioned think tanks, meet certain Chinese academics and visit Communist Party bigwigs and come back to write "safe" analyses. Those who dare to write critically are denied visas and blacklisted. For life-long academics and heads of China departments, the lure of returning to China unhindered is often great, sometimes greater than the crush of reality or the denial of access to the rest of the one billion Chinese. There is also the blinding dazzle of China's extreme success: if they can deliver so much, so quickly and so well, they must be doing it right.....

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-dragon-has-landed/articleshow/10330871.cms

Dayuhan

10-13-2011, 05:59 AM

The evolution of this China-friendly narrative is not entirely natural or innocent.

Neither is the evolution of the Sinophobic narrative. Always there are those with something to gain from the presence of an enemy. If there isn't one, they'll make one.

There is also the blinding dazzle of China's extreme success: if they can deliver so much, so quickly and so well, they must be doing it right.....

Somebody's not looking at a large part of the picture. The reference above to the non-performing loan stock held by Chinese banks is but the tip of the iceberg. They're not "doing it right" (nobody ever does), and that will in time come back at them.

Ray

10-13-2011, 07:41 AM

Ken,

In a democracy, no political decision can be without political overtones that affect the domestic audience. It is true of the US as it is true of India and other democracies.

Only dictatorship, quasi democracies (under control of the military) and totalitarian regimes can take policy decisions that can ignore the domestic audience.

Therefore, to feel that the Govt and the bureaucracy dithers in a democracy is but a ‘flaw’ one has to pay for the freedom of thought and action that the citizens enjoy.

Militaries, all over the world and not only in the US, are frustrated by the Govt. The military looks at military solutions and rarely are concerned with the domestic or international political ramifications.

Given that, I don’t think the US is any less in resolve to achieve its aim. Though the posts have been disappointingly indicating a chaotic and rudderless knee jerk scenario, on second thoughts, I find it being extraordinarily simplistic an argument put forward to circumvent the view trotted that the commentaries, article, think tanks, Congressional Hearing are totally to be disregarded being fiction/ political chicanery/ fudges.

I also would be surprised if Cheney’s documents I mentioned (DPG and NEP) were as misdirected as his quail hunting foray and violating the provisions of the licence to shoot! Bush’s Iraq War was a copybook endorsement to what he has postulated that should be done. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to swallow hook, line and sinker that the US has no short term, medium term or long term assessments. Further, if one believed that, then one wonders why the NIA is not disbanded to save the taxpayer’s money since its Assessments are fiction and fantasy which has no bearing to the US Govt policy making or for that matter why have the NSA, CIA etc? Or for that matter why have the ‘Contractors’ meddling in Pakistan and attempting to change the direction of pursuance of the WoT? I hardly think that one has to go to such horrendous exercises merely to be knee jerk!

As far as Gen Inder Rikhye is concerned, he was a political appointee of Nehru and was related to the Royal family of Punjab. He was an adherent to the Nehruvian socialist vision. He was with the UN from 1959 till 1969. If indeed he thought it was with the USSR that India should hitch its future, it would not be unusual. Notwithstanding, Nehru’s socialist vision, which should not be surprising given the abject poverty, illiteracy and decadence prevailing, India initially wanted to be pro US in view since Nehru was a great advocate of democratic processes. However, he baulked given John Foster Dulles inspired US Foreign Policy which found resonance in Bush’s infamous lines – you are either with us or against us!!

To expect a nation that had emerged from the colonial yoke after 300 years to then switch masters, would be too thick an option to buy! Given that, India slowly veered towards USSR without selling itself to the USSR, unlike Pakistan, which totally aligned with the US and joined the CENTO and the SEATO!

It was when the Soviet Union collapsed and China showed it true colours, did India realise that the US was the best option so much so, the PM Manmohan Singh, possibly at the bidding of the National Mentor, Sonia Gandhi (Edvige Antonia Albina Maino) made that remark in the US (which he now rues) “Mr Bush, India Loves You!”.

Unfortunately for Manmohan, he must have realised that the US was merely dishing out cosmetic sops that meant nothing in real terms (strategic partnership, military exercises, the nuclear deal etc) except that it was in the US interest to enter the vast Indian market emerging from the shackles of socialism and hence raw meat, as also sell its defence goods. That is why there seems to be a change of tack, wherein awarding lucrative defence deals to non US parties and emerging out of the shadows of the US nudged foreign policy (Iran, Myanmar, Vietnam, address in the UN General Assembly, surprising trade agreements with Pakistan etc). I believe the Vietnam top man and also of Myanmar is in the Indian capital today!

It would be difficult to switch from the US to China, but the rise of Russia seems to once again attract. In the interim, it appears India is biding time with a more independent foreign and economic policy with a slight tilt to appear accommodating the US.

Pakistan is an ideal example to emulate in the game of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. On this count, India has much to learn from them, they having honed it to the realm of a fine art! They are doing a remarkable job indeed!

Ray

10-13-2011, 08:06 AM

INVISIBLE NEIGHBOUR

Winds of change are blowing through Myanmar. The new civilian government of President Thein Sein has of late been busy ushering in reform, of both political and economic kinds. There are unprecedented gestures of goodwill towards the democracy movement leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, freer debate in the parliament, crackdown on corruption, moves to bring competitiveness and transparency to the opaque business sector, some more freedom for the muzzled media. Even Myanmar’s fiercest critics are taking note of the changes, the only question being, is the government serious about staying the course? Doubt over sustainability is legitimate, given Myanmar’s past faltering at liberalization. But in India, we must take the shifting winds for real — these developments are both a challenge and an opportunity — and fine-tune our policy......

While on the subject of privileged relationships, there is speculation about China’s future standing. If they are able to find greater acceptance from the rest of the world with their new openness, would Myanmar’s leadership still need China’s protective umbrella? China not only stood steadfast, on innumerable occasions, between the old regime and global accountability, it also threw, even if as much in self-interest, vital economic lifelines that Myanmar needed when shunned by powerful nations. Starting in the late 1980s, especially volatile times for Myanmar, China cemented its position through astute policy and determined implementation. And this happened in spite of Beijing’s being caught on the wrong side of much of Myanmar’s modern history.

China’s current ranking as pre-eminent external partner is unlikely to change any time soon though, faced with greater openness in Myanmar’s society and potentially keener competition from others, Beijing may have to change its style of diplomacy. One is already hearing of bursts of popular discontent over China’s heavy-handed execution of infrastructure projects in sensitive ethnic minority areas, something that could have been easily taken care of in the old days. China is too big, strong and proximate to ignore. But it may have to be more accountable for its actions in future.....

The first change we need is in mindset. Unlike China, we have never consciously focused on our Myanmar relations. In spite of its indisputable strategic significance, Myanmar for us is an ‘invisible neighbour’. How often does it figure in policy debates in seminar rooms or the media, and if it does, is it for the right reasons? In interminable discussions over the need for a transit route for India’s Northeast, the focus is always — even if justifiably — on Bangladesh. Myanmar’s capacity to offer a similar route is hardly noticed, as also the fact that a transit project, Kaladan, is currently in implementation. In discourse on India’s Look East policy, Myanmar being an actual, and only, land bridge to the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations does not register.....

India does enjoy a healthy enough relationship with Myanmar. But the Northeast as spearhead can impart to our policy the edge that we may need in a changing Myanmar. In that sense, India’s Myanmar policy may be inseparable from India’s Northeast development policy.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111013/jsp/opinion/story_14610494.jsp

Ray

10-13-2011, 08:08 AM

I would mention that India has mended, to a great extent, the void in the India Bangladesh relations.

India is improving her footprint, but there is a lurking feeling that the US is the catalyst!

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski's advice to Carter to have proxies to fight US battles comes to mind.

And some feel that US is a dithering nation with no short term, medium term or long term policy to remain relevant and be the Number Uno!

Ray

10-13-2011, 09:19 AM

But what surprises me is the contention that policies of the Govt, Congressional Hearings, commentaries, news reports are to be taken as bogus, fantasies, and fables and hence cannot be relied upon.

And then comes the hedging when it becomes sticky!

Neither here nor there!

If that is so, what can be relied upon so that we have a bottom line for discussion.

Meanderings of the self acclaimed KNOWALLS?

Ken White

10-13-2011, 03:57 PM

I find it being extraordinarily simplistic an argument put forward to circumvent the view trotted that the commentaries, article, think tanks, Congressional Hearing are totally to be disregarded being fiction/ political chicanery/ fudges.No indicator should be totally disregarded by anyone IMO. Nor has anyone suggested that -- what has been said is that (a) one should not take at face value everything one reads or hears; (b) the US media is inept; (c) the US political system is more prone to divisiveness and discord than are most; and (d) the US cult of primacy of the individual overlays all that. That does not say "disregard" -- it says be skeptical, don't rush to judgement and be careful not judge US actions through the prism of ones own national proclivities. Please note the US has a bad tendency to do just that in reverse, thus compounding misunderstandings, ala the US and USSR or the US and China --or India...

On the Think Tanks, perhaps my personal bias comes through. Having worked with several of them over the years, my opinion of their net worth is quite low and I will note that to justify their existence, they are tend to manufacture minor 'crises' or surface 'problems' for which, given an additional fee, they will find 'solutions.' Note that they will bear no responsibility for the failure of those 'solutions' but will certainly tout any successes... :rolleyes:
Bush’s Iraq War was a copybook endorsement to what he has postulated that should be done.True but Bush was no Neocon and he merely took A solution, the one offered by the Neocon crowd and implemented it in part to suit his goals. It is important to realize that Bush's acceptance of Cheney as his VP (and therefor of Wolfowitz, Bolton, et.;al.) was the condition of the big Republican donors contributing to his campaign; it was certainly not that Bush believed in Cheney or that they were even friendly. Bush adapted the Neocon solution for his own purposes. It was flawed, no question -- but IMO it was better than many alternatives that had powerful supporters and there is little question that something needed to be done to send the Middle East a message that attacks on American interests world wide were no longer going to be ignored (just as Afghanistan was to send the broader message that attacks on US soil were not going to be accepted at all).
Therefore, it would be wrong of me to swallow hook, line and sinker that the US has no short term, medium term or long term assessments.No one said we did not. What was said was that we don't do them at all well due to our electoral cycle at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years with often concomitant changes of direction AND that there were often competing assessments and the battles for selection often resulted in stalemates and unfortunate compromises.
Further, if one believed that, then one wonders why the NIA is not disbanded to save the taxpayer’s money since its Assessments are fiction and fantasy which has no bearing to the US Govt policy making...Nor was that said, though there's an element of truth in your statement in that the NIA is an unneeded bureaucratic overly that adds expense for little real gain -- it was added due to US domestic political concerns, post 9/11 -- not due to any real need.

The publicly released and discussed assessments are tailored for domestic consumption and will fudge reality toward the goals of the Administration (sometimes) or of the Intel Community (more often). All are not so skewed but some certainly are and the Iranian atomic effort of 2007 is and example. It is noteworthy the Classified stuff can differ markedly.
or for that matter why have the NSA, CIA etc? Or for that matter why have the ‘Contractors’ meddling in Pakistan and attempting to change the direction of pursuance of the WoT? I hardly think that one has to go to such horrendous exercises merely to be knee jerk!Heh. That's true but I suggest the 'Contractor' in Paksitan event is an example of less than stellar performance. We aren't super - but we aren't totally incompetent, either. We do perform a lot of "knee-jerks' because we're impatient and often, circumstances will not allow our ponderous decision making process time to do the right thing...

Note also that the NSA, CIA etc are in fact overly bureaucratic and due to our political and budgeting system very turf protective -- but they doesn't mean they're totally incompetent, just that they aren't as good as they could be. They do well enough overall.
As far as Gen Inder Rikhye...Understood and that's fine, merely cited him as but one example of something I've heard from many people many places.
Notwithstanding, Nehru’s socialist vision, which should not be surprising given the abject poverty, illiteracy and decadence prevailing, India initially wanted to be pro US in view since Nehru was a great advocate of democratic processes. However, he baulked given John Foster Dulles inspired US Foreign Policy which found resonance in Bush’s infamous lines – you are either with us or against us!!Yes, we've made many a foreign policy error -- too many driven by US domestic politics, as was the one you cite. Instead of a sensible and pragmatic decision based on US interests and the merits, it was a course dictated by strident opposition to anyone to the left of Attilla...:rolleyes:
Unfortunately for Manmohan, he must have realised that the US was merely dishing out cosmetic sops that meant nothing in real terms (strategic partnership, military exercises, the nuclear deal etc) except that it was in the US interest to enter the vast Indian market emerging from the shackles of socialism and hence raw meat, as also sell its defence goods.No question the sales aspect is part of it; that's from part of the huge, fractious US government. There's also no question that the strategic partnership is part of it -- and that comes from another part of that huge, fractious government. Ponder that...
It would be difficult to switch from the US to China, but the rise of Russia seems to once again attract. In the interim, it appears India is biding time with a more independent foreign and economic policy with a slight tilt to appear accommodating the US.As they should be.
Pakistan is an ideal example to emulate in the game of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. On this count, India has much to learn from them, they having honed it to the realm of a fine art! They are doing a remarkable job indeed!Not so fine as to preclude you and I among others from noting that. The questions are under what circumstances and how long will the Hounds tolerate it... ;)

Ken White

10-13-2011, 04:16 PM

But what surprises me is the contention that policies of the Govt, Congressional Hearings, commentaries, news reports are to be taken as bogus, fantasies, and fables and hence cannot be relied upon.As be skeptical and wary is really quite far from "bogus, fantasies, and fables" your conclusion is a bit surprising. Though I'll grant Dayuhan and I did both mention fables -- they are in fact out there...

Evil American intent as opposed to normal minor American fumbles being a prevalent example. :D
And then comes the hedging when it becomes sticky!Hedging or trying to erase misperceptions from perhaps not well stated positions? IMO you have elected to take the dimmest possible view suiting your purpose of what's been said and tried to use those perceptions in the face of amplification which then becomes 'hedging' -- I do not think it is hedging anymore than I think your stated take on the issues is hedging.

This is an imperfect medium, a lot of nuance is missed.
If that is so, what can be relied upon so that we have a bottom line for discussion.[/B]

Meanderings of the self acclaimed KNOWALLS?Can't speak for others but I make no claim to be a know all. I know some things and can make an informed guess on others. On still many more others, I have no clue. I have no problem stating what I know, what I guess and acknowledging what I don't know. I am however open to learning new things and to modifying my position in the face of new information. ;)

Ken White

10-13-2011, 04:31 PM

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski's advice to Carter to have proxies to fight US battles comes to mind.

And some feel that US is a dithering nation with no short term, medium term or long term policy to remain relevant and be the Number Uno!Using proxies, including by the US, is a lot older than Zbig Brzezinski. Still works, too... :D

The US has only two long term policies. Open commerce and non tolerance of threats. That's been true for over 200 years and is not going to change (though the degree of tolerance acceptable and the domestic impact of open commerce can cause aberrations and adjustments due to the political climate in Washington)

It has a large number of medium term policies, strategic and commercial involvement with India being examples -- two different examples that may cause tension -- and that policy is likely to remain from Administration to Administration because it just makes sense (in both aspects). What will change is the relative amount of emphasis each of those policies receives and HOW the policies are implemented.

That implementation will become short term policy and it will vary in accordance with the nominal ability of a given policy maker in DC to affect the course of things and / or with the whims of Congress. Harken back to John Foster Dulles and our then treatment of India. If the Democrats had been in control (more friendly to socialism) things likely would have been different.

No one has said we do not have policies -- just that they are not consistently applied...

Ray

10-13-2011, 05:16 PM

That implementation will become short term policy and it will vary in accordance with the nominal ability of a given policy maker in DC to affect the course of things and / or with the whims of Congress. Harken back to John Foster Dulles and our then treatment of India. If the Democrats had been in control (more friendly to socialism) things likely would have been different.

In actuality, India has benefited from Republican Govts (except Nixon's era).

Ken White

10-13-2011, 05:48 PM

In actuality, India has benefited from Republican Govts (except Nixon's era).In the US, the two parties have come closer together in most things, differing mainly in almost unreasoning dislike of each other. That can occasionally give an impression of comity and continuity -- but it will fracture in a second over domestic power squabbles and certain bed rock policies.

India has, from the standpoint of the US, benefited from the fact that it is India, that there are many Indian emigres here, that it is handy with English -- and is large... :wry:

Ray

10-14-2011, 03:32 PM

Ken,

Just a point as to what can be believed and what can’t be believed and if we are to discard all that is in the open forum, then how will we proceed? Just to clarify, I am not here to prove any point, I am merely trying to share what is generally perceived in India and in turn, understand views that are generally felt in the western world on various issues.

Without doubt, nothing in the world is not agenda driven, be it the media, politics, Hearings or even life in general. Therefore, it is natural that one has to tread cautiously, to include being sceptical. Notwithstanding, as I see it, being sceptical should not, in any way, cripple the acumen for analysis and thought based on whatever is available, the events being beyond the average poster’s control.

Within this conundrum of belief, an analysis to fathom the issues has to be made. Therefore, one has to take each input (be it the media report, think tank analysis, Congressional Hearings etc), analyse it from all angles and try to see how far they fit into the mosaic that develops in tandem. And then see its place in the series of similar or near similar events/reports/conjectures/opinions of the past. It is obviously that a one off report cannot be taken as the Gospel, unless it is corroborated by other sources, preferably from the opposite sides of the fence, and better still, antagonistic in approach or is totally and irrefutably independent.

To wit, take the case of India building a road in Afghanistan.

Let us accept that it is being done for altruistic reasons. But when viewed with the India’s construction of the Chahbahar port in Iran and connecting it to this road built in Afghanistan as also having a military hospital and a Base in Tajikistan, and at the same time assisting in building the Afghan National Army, the obvious inference is that India has a growing interest in CAR, call it what you may, strategic, political, economic or whatever. Or else, what is all the effort in aid of? It does suggest that there is attempt to circumvent and even isolate the obstacle of the landmass of Pakistan and develop trade and even strategic ties in the CAR and ensure the ‘avenue’ to CAR is not bothersome. There are reports that that is not the aim, and instead it is to build ‘people to people contact’, ‘assist friendly countries’, ‘cement long standing and eternal historical ties’ and suchlike political rhetoric, which, given the events in the region, does suggest is mere smoke and mirrors.

So, what does one therefore analyse?

One has two options – analyse it and keep a watch and fit into the mosaic as it develops or rubbish it as not worth the paper it is written on.

History stands witness that when one reads the events to fit one’s own perception, or perfunctorily rubbish what does not fit one’s interpretation, then one comes a cropper. The suggestion is to avoid the obvious, and instead taking the inputs, dig deep, and see if it fits the mosaic developing and then accept or negate an input. Even then, one could not be 100% correct.

Take the case of Iraq. There was this evangelist zeal to spread ‘Freedom and Democracy’ and the American way of life as it was reported. It may have stirred some hearts, but the world saw it otherwise. After all, if it were to bring ‘Freedom and Democracy’, there were more deserving cases like Rwanda or even Mugabwe’s Zimbabwe and yet the US stood as a mute spectator!

Some claimed it was for Iraq’s oil, but was it? Media reported so and went to town. However, those who had read Cheney’s DPG and NEP (which when formulated was rubbished as kite flying and typical American ‘bolshiness’) and observed the events as it unfoleded, would realise that it was copybook of what was enunciated regarding not only in the field of energy security, but also in consonance to have ‘areas’ in world’s hot spots (post Cold War) so that US reaction was fast and not cumbersomely slow.

Therefore, what was taken to be rubbish when it was postulated was a design that was actually implemented.

The issue on which I have written/ stated is not the result of any ‘phobias’, it is just an attempt to analyse the events as reported from a variety of sources, western, Chinese, Indian, Asian and get the general western views on the subjects.

Since there are many posters who are highly placed one was only trying to find their views including those who felt that everything was rubbish. Indeed, if they are rubbish, the rational as to why they are rubbish would have helped and not merely by what I felt, rightly or wrongly, an attempt to dismiss the links and assume that one is the last word and that’s it! Or as the American’s say – Period!

I think you have misunderstood the Know All remark. It was not aimed at you for the simple reason that you gave your views with rationale and the inputs are appreciated. It was a generalised remark for reasons explained above.

Ken White

10-14-2011, 04:19 PM

Just a point as to what can be believed and what can’t be believed and if we are to discard all that is in the open forum, then how will we proceed?Cautiously and with some difficulty. Assessing open source information for validity in one's own nation is not easy, adding input from other nations compounds the difficulty. I tend to look for at least three sources, preferably competing, filter for their known or obvious bias if appropriate and then assess -- sometimes that works well, occasionally it does not.

However, you know all that. Only real advice I can give on that score in relation to this discussion is to be very skeptical of US mass media reports (the professional and trade media is a bit better but not by much). Our media is a part but not all of the problem in the be-clowning of the US in the eyes of many elsewhere in the world. It is, quite simply, not very good...
Notwithstanding, as I see it, being sceptical should not, in any way, cripple the acumen for analysis and thought based on whatever is available, the events being beyond the average poster’s control.Agreed.
...Therefore, one has to take each input (be it the media report, think tank analysis, Congressional Hearings etc), analyse it from all angles and try to see how far they fit into the mosaic... preferably from the opposite sides of the fence, and better still, antagonistic in approach or is totally and irrefutably independent.Again we agree, I have said and do believe that, for the US only, our media is marginal; I strongly distrust Think Tanks for the reasons I stated ; and our Congress is notorious here for playing to the Crowd -- many, not all, hearings, Committees and Super-Committees are charades and it's generally readily apparent which have substance (few) and which do not (many).
One has two options – analyse it and keep a watch and fit into the mosaic as it develops or rubbish it as not worth the paper it is written on.Agreed -- I tend to hew to watching...
Take the case of Iraq. There was this evangelist zeal to spread ‘Freedom and Democracy’ and the American way of life as it was reported. It may have stirred some hearts, but the world saw it otherwise. After all, if it were to bring ‘Freedom and Democracy’, there were more deserving cases like Rwanda or even Mugabwe’s Zimbabwe and yet the US stood as a mute spectator!True, we talk a lot of hypocritical trash -- "we" being mostly US politicians who are not much concerned with world opinion but are very much playing to the domestic voter. That is a critical point for foreign observers who are much more internationally aware than are most Americans -- US foreign policy is almost an afterthought and is very much driven by US domestic politics and voter whims...
However, those who had read Cheney’s DPG and NEP (which when formulated was rubbished as kite flying and typical American ‘bolshiness’) and observed the events as it unfoleded, would realise that it was copybook of what was enunciated regarding not only in the field of energy security, but also in consonance to have ‘areas’ in world’s hot spots (post Cold War) so that US reaction was fast and not cumbersomely slow.Generally correct. The issue though is not the resemblance but whether or not the Neocons and their project for a New American Century really reflected the medium term views of the entire US government. I am certain they did not. They did have a plan of sorts and were temporarily influential enough to exercise parts of that plan. The key word there is "temporarily" -- the electoral cycle in the US precludes even medium term 'control' of enough elements of government to create long term problems.
Therefore, what was taken to be rubbish when it was postulated was a design that was actually implemented.In part and because it fit the desires of the then President -- who was NOT a member or even a true believer of or in that group or its goals. It also (as opposed to several other options not employed due to a lack of capability...) was within the capability of the US Armed Forces who were -- and are -- not as well trained as they could and should be. Those forces, BTW, never bough into that vision -- they did what they were told but halfheartedly because they knew that the long-term plan would change and they'd be left holding the bag. :wry:
The issue on which I have written/ stated is not the result of any ‘phobias’, it is just an attempt to analyse the events as reported from a variety of sources, western, Chinese, Indian, Asian and get the general western views on the subjects.I know and I appreciate your insights. I did and do not dispute most of what you say, I merely was and am advising caution in assessing the US for all the various reason stated over these last few posts. We aren't incompetent but we are chaotic. :eek:

Ray

10-14-2011, 04:45 PM

US media and organisations may be suspect.

The Chinese too?

They are controlled to put out a certain view for the global audience or even test the waters!

Chaos in any democracy.

Some are pro Govt and some anti Govt.

One has to balance it with other independent sources, and then decide the situation.

Ray

10-14-2011, 04:50 PM

Fine.'

Democratic views are wrong or chaotic.

Could you explain the Chinese moves in CAR, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar, South China Sea, Afghanistan, even Xinjianng and Tibet (there is no dispute that it is a part of China) , changing the course of water in the Mekong and Brahmaputra and relate it to its 'Peaceful Rise'?

That is what I wanted to know.

Ken White

10-14-2011, 06:14 PM

Democratic views are wrong or chaotic.Not necessarily wrong but, if essentially a democratic nation, the views will be divergent, sometimes strikingly so.

A Parliamentary system of government accepts divergent views but the the government of the day will decide on a course of action and generally implement that. In the US with our three arm Republican governmental system, The Legislative branch will not reliably support the government of the day. That is particularly true if those branches are of different parties but it can even occur if both are of the same party. The third branch, the Judiciary will not reliably support either of the other two branches and can effectively overrule one or both.

Thus one can be confronted with the Administration or the Congress announcing a policy which is then disavowed by the Congress or Administration. The Admin can implement a foreign policy and Congress can refuse to fund it. Congress can pass a law that says 'X' and the Administration can just not implement or enforce it. An Agency may be directed by the Admin to do 'Y' and drag its feet, waiting for a new Administration. ANY US citizen can take the issue to Court and, if given a bit of success can stall things for years. All democracy is, as you say, chaotic -- we are particularly so and usually slow to decide (when not rushed into knee jerk reactions...:rolleyes: ).
Could you explain the Chinese moves in CAR, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar, South China Sea, Afghanistan, even Xinjianng and Tibet (there is no dispute that it is a part of China) , changing the course of water in the Mekong and Brahmaputra and relate it to its 'Peaceful Rise'?Dichotomy? That would be my explanation based on what I know at this time. Those moves may at this time be viewed as a sort of "Peaceful Rise" but they emphatically do not telegraph that as an ultimate goal...

Ray

10-14-2011, 06:28 PM

Dichotomy? That would be my explanation based on what I know at this time. Those moves may at this time be viewed as a sort of "Peaceful Rise" but they emphatically do not telegraph that as an ultimate goal...

If I can have your indulgence in knowing the facts that bring you to that conclusion since that is what I seek to know.

Ken White

10-14-2011, 07:10 PM

If I can have your indulgence in knowing the facts that bring you to that conclusion since that is what I seek to know.The 'facts' that I know are that China is large and has internal problems. Those facts are gained through open source material and your source are probably more varied then mine. The possibly factual things of which I'm aware are accounts which, in total, suggest all the things you cite and more as indicators that the Chinese are doggedly and aggressively pursuing both resource and a degree of economic investment and return if not hegemony worldwide to include in both Americas. Again, that's all open source and in sum appears reasonably factual but I certainly have not traveled enough lately to say much is indeed fact..

Long observation has led me to believe that a series of events tend to aim toward a logical culmination. The logical culminating event here would seem to be sole superpower. *

So I have no collection of facts, merely a series of reasonably plausible indicators and, as the Intel Wallas say, "Indications lead me to believe..."

* That may be the aim, may not be. If it is, even my limited math skills are adequate to say both your nation and mine can jointly or separately deter that should we wish -- and I do not mean militarily -- and I know (As I'm old...) that unforeseen things can intrude on the best of plans... ;)

Dayuhan

10-15-2011, 12:54 AM

And some feel that US is a dithering nation with no short term, medium term or long term policy to remain relevant and be the Number Uno!

Yes, some feel that way. Ask JMA, he'll tell you all about it.

The US has always dithered; it's the nature of the system. That dithering is somewhat reduced when the nation perceives an existential threat, but it's always there. It might be seen as odd that the US has achieved substantial stature despite that, and that nations with a far greater capacity for decisive action and long term planning have fallen by the wayside. The answer is simply that the same system that produces that frustration tendency to dither also provides a very substantial resilience. They go together.

As far as being "Numero Uno" goes, there are two questions there. One is whether it is in the US interest to try to be "Numero Uno", given the enormous costs involved in trying to meddle in everybody else's business and maintaining a military force capable of meddling in everybody else's business.

The other question is whether engagements such as the one in Afghanistan actually build American influence and strengthen America's position. I would suggest that they do not. If preserving great power status is the issue, it's worth noting that great powers have often fallen because they overextended themselves and devoted excessive resources to unnecessary efforts where benefit failed to justify cost. What great power has ever fallen because it failed to impose itself in the irrelevant backwaters of the world?

[B]But what surprises me is the contention that policies of the Govt, Congressional Hearings, commentaries, news reports are to be taken as bogus, fantasies, and fables and hence cannot be relied upon.

Not all of them are, but most are. Everything has to be read with skepticism, and every contention reviewed to see if it actually makes sense. If you look at the root of the various claims about strategic and economic reasons for the US to be in Afghanistan, they just don't make sense. They don't hold up to scrutiny. Sure, there are lots and lots of people with vested interests in claiming that they do make sense... but they still don't.

And then comes the hedging when it becomes sticky!

If that is so, what can be relied upon so that we have a bottom line for discussion.

That which stands up to skeptical scrutiny. That which makes sense.

Meanderings of the self acclaimed KNOWALLS?

Nobody knows it all, but some of us try to know BS when we see it. Given the amount of it around, if you don't know it when you see it you're likely to drown in it.

Ray

10-15-2011, 10:07 AM

Nobody knows it all, but some of us try to know BS when we see it. Given the amount of it around, if you don't know it when you see it you're likely to drown in it.

Indeed, lots of BS one sees!

davidbfpo

01-19-2013, 08:13 PM

Thanks to a "lurker" for this pointer an article by a Pakistani on a Chinese website that advocates Gwadar port become a Chinese responsibility:
Pakistan is under pressure to take the port back from SPA (Singapore Ports Authority) owing to the fact that it has not fulfilled its commitments, despite all the concessions made to it. The Singaporean company has failed to make the requisite investments ($550m) in proportion as required and 3 years have already gone by.

(later)...There is a growing consensus in Pakistan that China should be given the operational charge of Gwadar Port. This stance has taken on added momentum against the backdrop of emerging strategic concerns, including an increasing US interest in this Port. There seems to be growing evidence that the American interests would be served by blocking the development of Gwadar, especially as an energy hub and corridor to Central Asia and China.

Unlike earlier times, when China kept in the background to allay US suspicions about its strategic intent in Gwadar, this time round China has tacitly agreed to accept charge of the facility offered by Pakistan.

Link:http://www.youlinmagazine.com/article-detail.php?pageid=article&articleid=Nzk=#.UPr1AKF-xEA

Given the geographical position of Gwadar, still developing transport links to the hinterland, I am surprised anyone wnats to invest there. Perhaps the SPA realised that?

Ray

01-21-2013, 02:31 PM

Thanks to a "lurker" for this pointer an article by a Pakistani on a Chinese website that advocates Gwadar port become a Chinese responsibility:

Link:http://www.youlinmagazine.com/article-detail.php?pageid=article&articleid=Nzk=#.UPr1AKF-xEA

Given the geographical position of Gwadar, still developing transport links to the hinterland, I am surprised anyone wnats to invest there. Perhaps the SPA realised that?

Pakistan's oil, gas and most natural resources are in Balochistan and Gwadar is Balochistan's port.

) Coal

2) Chromate

3) Barytes

4) Sulphur

5) Marble

6) Iron Ore

7) Quartzite

8)Limestone

Revenue of mineral is $1.5 billion per annum; we know that more than 50 metallic and non-metallic minerals have been discovered in Balochistan. Metallic ores are chromites, copper, gold, silver, iron ore, lead and zinc, while the non-metallic include barite, marble, granite, gypsum, limestone, coal, dolomite, calcite, silica sand.

Revenue of gas is $42 billion per year; According to the Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP) there are reserves of 19 trillion cubic feet of gas and 6 trillion barrels of oil.

http://bolanvoice.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/balochistan-a-rich-mineral-resources-land/

bourbon

01-21-2013, 09:14 PM

A great game begins as China takes control of Gwadar port (http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/a-great-game-begins-as-china-takes-control-of-gwadar-port#full), by Syed Fazl-e-Haider. The National (UAE), Oct 7, 2012.

Gwadar port, through the proposed energy and trade corridors, gives western China access to the sea. Crude oil imports from Iran, the Arab Gulf states and Africa could be transported overland to north-west China through the port.

China considers Gwadar very important for its oil trade, as the present choke point is the Strait of Hormuz, which is becoming congested. In particular, a strategic pipeline from Gwadar to China's borders enables Beijing to import oil from Saudi Arabia. In 2006, King Abdullah reportedly asked Islamabad to help Saudi Arabia to extend oil exports to China.

China is the world's second largest importer of oil, with 80 per cent of imports going through the unsafe Strait of Malacca. A railroad and oil pipeline linking Gwadar with Kashi in western China provides Beijing with the shortest possible route to the oil-rich Middle East, avoiding the Strait of Malacca and the dangerous maritime routes through the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. Chinese engineers have already completed a feasibility study for a railroad and oil pipeline, which would enable Gwadar to handle most of the oil tankers headed to China.

Dayuhan

01-21-2013, 11:55 PM

I wouldn't call it insignificant, but there is a tendency in many quarters to overrate the significance of these developments, as in the hyperventilating about "great games" and the occasionally seen references to strategic game-changers. An example would be the cited items...

China considers Gwadar very important for its oil trade, as the present choke point is the Strait of Hormuz, which is becoming congested.

Gwadar doesn't circumvent the Strait of Hormuz. Gwadar is still outside the strait, the oil is still inside. A Gwadar-China pipeline could allow China to import oil from Iran without passing through the Strait if an additional pipeline from Iran's oil fields to Gwadar. The degree of protection from a potential closure of the strait is limited. By far the most likely scenario for closure of the strait is a conflict involving Iran, in which event pipelines leaving Iran would almost certainly be targeted.

In particular, a strategic pipeline from Gwadar to China's borders enables Beijing to import oil from Saudi Arabia. In 2006, King Abdullah reportedly asked Islamabad to help Saudi Arabia to extend oil exports to China.

Beijing already imports oil from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is Beijing's leading supplier of oil. Oil moving from Saudi Arabia to China via Gwadar would still transit the Strait of Hormuz.

China is the world's second largest importer of oil, with 80 per cent of imports going through the unsafe Strait of Malacca. A railroad and oil pipeline linking Gwadar with Kashi in western China provides Beijing with the shortest possible route to the oil-rich Middle East, avoiding the Strait of Malacca and the dangerous maritime routes through the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea.

A pipeline would circumvent the Straits of Malacca, but the strategic significance of this, especially in the event of a conflict with the US, is questionable. If conflict reached a point severe enough that the US was closing the Straits of Malacca to China-bound shipping, the US could just as easily (probably more easily) close a Gwadar-China pipeline through air attack, sabotage, or simply by preventing oil from reaching Gwadar. There would be some degree of protection from purely regional conflict involving the Straits of Malacca, but not much change in the ability of the US (or India) to control the flow of oil from the Middle East to China.

Chinese engineers have already completed a feasibility study for a railroad and oil pipeline, which would enable Gwadar to handle most of the oil tankers headed to China.

This is simply wrong. Even a very large capacity pipeline would handle only a fraction of China's oil import needs. Some of the oil tankers headed to China, yes, but a long way from "most".

omarali50

01-22-2013, 05:56 PM

It is sometimes alleged (and i have done it myself) that most of this "strategic" stuff must be cover for some person's shortcut to immediate monetary rewards, or some institution's ticket to greater relevance (and a larger share of the pie).
I dont just mean outside commentators.. I am guessing there are Chinese "think-tankers" who go around saying stuff about the urgent need to invest in Gwadar or to blow it up or whatever. Can we ascribe all of it to institutional interests (more money for the PLA or the think tank or Sinopec?)? or to personal interests (even something as small as annual paid visits to a conference in Hainan?)?
Or could it be that a lot of things really happen due to misunderstanding? they are in someone's interest eventually, or they hurt someone eventually, but mostly by accident. Neither gainer nor loser made the plans. Just took advantage of someone else's attempt at thinking strategically. Or suffered because of someone else's notion of strategic depth (see pakistani people for details).
Its not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious.

davidbfpo

03-24-2013, 11:18 PM

An Australian review of an Indian analyst's book 'Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific' by C. Raja Mohan:http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?284514

A few passages:
This book is as much about China’s historic turn to the sea and America’s challenge in mainta#ining stability as it is about the maritime challenge for a rising India. For it will be the complex ballet among the strategic and economic interests of these three powers that determines, above all else, if the so-called Asian Century will be domina#ted by coexistence and cooperation, or by competition and conflict.

(Later) More than anything else, it is China’s acute dependence on energy imp##orts across the Indian Ocean that means Beijing—like India—has no cho#ice but to accept that it is a quintessentially Indo-Pacific nation, not purely an Asian one.

Backwards Observer

03-25-2013, 03:32 AM

As charming as it is to be treated once again to an article tossing down the “Indo-Pacific” concept like a rattle from a think tank high-chair, the colicky deployment of fabulist buzzwords is neither a remedy for a dearth of grounded regional insight nor a substitute for adult diplomacy by any of the relevant stakeholders. Presumably this includes the Indo-Australian region. Other than that, it would seem that a positive economic climate would indeed suit all parties, including the gentlemen formerly known as the East India Company :). Conversely, it could be ventured that the so-called "9 dotted line" is likewise an inappropriate and outdated bargaining position that is based on an outmoded (self)-perception that detracts from sensible negotiations.

The normalization process is proceeding well. As I wrote earlier too, 2012 has been a truly transformative year and our policymakers have done exceedingly well. As recently as in 2006-2007, we were marvelling at the idea of a quadripartite alliance of Asian democracies under the US’s mentorship; as recently as in 2009, we were contemplating how to fasten the ‘global commons’. (Robert Kaplan wrote a full book on it.)

Indeed, both were geopolitical projects with a barely hidden ‘anti-China’ bias. We have come a long way from there, thanks largely to fortuitous circumstances. Yet, some of our pundits conceive the ‘Indo-Pacific’ as our country’s ’sphere of influence’. The doctrine of ‘Indo-Pacific’ — comprising the swathe of the globe stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to Vanuatu — is probably intended as a red herring to China. Shibboleths don’t dissipate easily. We hardly jettisoned one — ’string of pearls’ — with great hesitation. (by M K Bhadrakumar - Indian Punchline)

India-China shibboleths take time to dissipate (http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2013/03/05/india-china-shibboleths-take-time-to-dissipate/) - M K Bhadrakumar - Indian Punchline - 3.5.2013

http://www.sussexvt.k12.de.us/science/The%20History%20of%20the%20World%201500-1899/The%20First%20Opium%20War_files/image001.jpg