China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Dayuhan]

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]

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/pap...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/2009/0...mportance.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/p...ring/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]

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/%5C...paper4294.html

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

[Ray]

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]

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/%5C...paper4595.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.

[Dayuhan]

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]

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...fa48119_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?