China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Ray]

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]

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...

[Ray]

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]

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.

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.

[Ray]

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]

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]

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... ).

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...