China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[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?

[Ken White]

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]

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!

[Dayuhan]

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]

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/h...w/10330871.cms