China’s View of South Asia and the Indian Ocean

[Ray]

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/111101...y_14610494.jsp

[Ray]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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...

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]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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]

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]

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/articl...=#.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]

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/articl...=#.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...esources-land/

[bourbon]

A great game begins as China takes control of Gwadar port, 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]

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".