What if India and China Unite?

World Net Daily ^ | May 30, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[Paul Ross]

Speaking of inroads by the Chinese...note this, which I would file under "tyrannical coercion and gall":

China Threatens U.S. Alliances
by Dana Robert Dillon (April 6, 2005)

Article website address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=4202

Summary: Less than a week after China announced its new "Anti-Secession" law, by which Beijing claims the right to attack democratic Taiwan if it sees fit, a Chinese official demanded Australia amend its 50-year-old alliance with the United States.

[CapMag.com]

While the Bush administration continues to push and celebrate significant successes for democracy in the Middle East, China is on an opposing mission in Asia, where it continues to block the spread of freedom.

The most recent target of Chinese diplomatic pressure is Australia, America’s most reliable ally in the Pacific — or in the world, for that matter. Less than a week after China announced its new “Anti-Secession” law, by which Beijing claims the right to attack democratic Taiwan if it sees fit, a Chinese official demanded Australia amend its 50-year-old alliance with the United States.

Australians fought beside Americans in every war of the 20th century — from World War I through World War II, Korea, Vietnam and both Gulf wars. The war in Vietnam was just as controversial in Australia as it was in the United States, but the Aussies never abandoned their friends in America.

Australia has not flinched from our alliance in the 21st century. When the Indonesian military began its scorched-earth operations against East Timor in September 1999, Australia deployed a peacekeeping force there even as the much larger Indonesian army continued to conduct its punitive operations. Because of Australia’s immediate and strong response, the United States had to deploy only a handful of technical specialists to help out in East Timor.

Canberra invoked the alliance when the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, and Australia has participated in every campaign of the war on terrorism, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The war has not been without cost to Australia: In October 2002, Al Qaeda-linked terrorists blew up a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, killing 92 Australians. Other Australians, soldiers and civilians alike, have lost their lives fighting alongside Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and other battlefields of the war on terrorism.

Australia also shares with the United States a critical security interest in defending democracies in Asia. In August 2001, then-deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visited Canberra and later commented that he could not imagine Australia not supporting the U.S. in any major conflict in Asia — even in Taiwan.

Ever since, Beijing has sought to drive a wedge between Canberra and Washington. On the very day China passed its so-called “anti-secession” law, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s top Pacific policy official, Mr. He Yafei, told an interviewer from The Australian, "If there were any move by Australia and the U.S. in terms of that alliance [ANZUS] that is detrimental to peace and stability in Asia, then it [Australia] has to be very careful," adding that this was “especially so” in the case of Taiwan.

Beijing’s message was clear: Australia had better not help the United States to defend Taiwan — or else.

Australia’s foreign ministry immediately released a statement that Australia had no intentions of amending any facet of the treaty with America and that the alliance remains strong. But there is more going on here than indirect threats from old men in China’s foreign ministry. China is one of Australia’s largest trading partners with about $20 billion dollars a year trade both ways, and Beijing has suggested a bilateral free-trade agreement was possible to further sweeten the pot.

That China would challenge an American alliance as strong as our relationship with Australia sends a clear signal that the Chinese are ready to test the extent of their new and growing power in the region and, perhaps, the resolve of the United States and Australia. In the last four years, as China has emerged as the economic superpower of the Asia-Pacific region, it increasingly has sought opportunities to challenge American power in the region and replace the United States as the dominant diplomatic presence.

The Chinese also have begun to effectively translate their trade and investment clout into political influence. China now gives military assistance to the Philippines, another long-time ally of the United States, and props up dangerous, despicable regimes in North Korea, Burma and elsewhere.

It is right that the Bush administration take pride in its accomplishments toward democratization in the Middle East. But it needs to keep an eye on China, too. It has dropped the ball in the Far East in recent weeks. The Chinese have picked up that ball and begun to run with it.

First appeared in The Asian Wall Street Journal

About the Author: Dana Robert Dillon is a senior policy analyst in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.

Copyright 2005-1997 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Without worrying about a threat from India, China is free to consider expansionist policies including, but not limited to, a move against Taiwan.

This is an almost laughable assumption. China has absolutely no fear of India. Any visit by to India by a PLA Chief of Staff is for sightseeing. China's agressive plans for military expansionism is focused exclusively to the south and to the north.

[Jeff Head]

BTW, the jointly developed fighter I beleive you are talking about was originally designated the FC-1, but I believe it will be called the JF-17 in Pakistan service.

Although prototypes have flown, it is not scheduled for series production until 2006. I believe it is a revamped version of the failed and rejected Mig-33 design from the old Soviets.

[Jeff Head]

If there were any move by Australia and the U.S. in terms of that alliance [ANZUS] that is detrimental to peace and stability in Asia, then it [Australia] has to be very careful," adding that this was “especially so” in the case of Taiwan.

Beijing’s message was clear: Australia had better not help the United States to defend Taiwan — or else.

Yep...saw that when it occurred. No doubt the ChiComms are starting to try and flex some muscle. But I believe the Aussies will stand firm.

[Paul_Denton]

With all those Chinese and/or Indians, we'll need all the bang we can get.

That and we need to weaponize space now. Not just defensive but offensive weapons. Both satellite killers and surface bombardment weapons.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

This is why I don't take Joseph Farah seriously as a geopolitical analyst.

The Indian government that cut such a deal would be dead inside of a week, and the military would be running the country.

[Jeff Head]

They do not have an alliance of the sort invisioned by Farah...but they are getting uncomfortably close with announcements like this:

India and China agree to form Strategic Partnership

...and IMHO, we should be concerned.

[Paul Ross]

You suppose the steel trade, with China sucking up much of India's export trade, is creating any real "entanglement" effect?

I seem to recall that Japan was snapping up all the world's scrap steel and iron...inclusive of the U.S.... before Pearl Harbor. China's sudden import-binge is troubling. Especially with the evidence of a naval-construction program that greatly exceeds what we are told that we can now afford...

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

You want a bigger navy? Shoot your grandparents.

[ZOTnot]

Yes, more and more.

Thread after thread.

Dare to disagree with the 'FR Party Line' and one comes under attack.

It is happening more and more every day.

We will see more and more of the exits via an 'opus' in my humble opinion as people become fed up with the attacks.

Sad.

[RebelTex]

To USMMA_83:

You wrote: "My god...you are completely clueless in south-asian history, aren't you. ... ... Jeff is hawking his nonsence books...."

Wow - Those are some very persuasive insults.  Really fine arguments that will convince everyone of your superior intellect, knowledge, and humility.

To both USMMA_83 & sukhoi-30mki:

I never claimed to have a vast and/or complete knowledge of south-Asian history.   I am aware, however, of the following:

1. That both India and Pakistan have joined the nuclear club not so long ago, and that both have short range missile capability, and either already have or are working on mid-range and long range capability.
2. That India and Pakistan have had and continue to have serious border flare-ups and other issues between them.
3. That both India and Pakistan have Muslim agitators that stir up trouble every chance they get.
4. That China has definitely been making power plays on several fronts, flexing muscles economically and militarily and continues efforts to upgrade military capacity, and cozying up to our enemies and some allies, and threatening our other allies.
5. That, IMHO, if all out war broke out between India and Pakistan, the US & China would most likely be drawn into the conflict.
6. That, IMHO, whichever side the US takes doesn't really matter as China will most likely take the other side.
7. That, IMHO, it would be best for us, the US, to enhance our relationships with both India and Pakistan as much as possible, try to prevent such a war, and hinder China's efforts where possible.

Maybe that doesn't make you nervous, but I prefer for us to pay attention to possible warning signs and be prepared for whichever way the wind blows.

[Gengis Khan]

"That, IMHO, if all out war broke out between India and Pakistan, the US & China would most likely be drawn into the conflict.
That, IMHO, whichever side the US takes doesn't really matter as China will most likely take the other side."

And whose side do you think the US would take? Can you state it a bit more clearly?

[cynicom]

Zot...

Jeff has tried to open a civil dialogue with this thread. What do we have, people that have no civility.

I stopped bothering to respond after they appeared. This is not a place for personal insults, yet they persist. I often wonder how they manage in open society, whether they insult everyone they come into contact with.

Being the gentleman that he is, Jeff did not respond in kind.

[Gengis Khan]

This should be a cause for concern for both India and the US. Despite all the rhetoric on "strategic partnership" and "natural allies". We dont seem to be moving forward. We are always stuck where we are when it comes to Indo-US relations. And the fact remains (as always)....China thrives on US weakness or folly (as we see in this case China attempting to drag India out of the American camp).

To begin with, India and China can never be allies (unless the US goes overtly anti-India as it did under Nixon). Secondly Pakistan and China are long-term "all weather" allies. Pakistan wont mind milking the US for aid and weaponry for some time but will never let go of China.

The US has courted Pakistan for the following reasons:
1. (For short term) To nab OBL.
2. To have a strong Muslim ally in the heart of Asia (America's list of allies in the Muslim world grows thin and America prefers not to have another Muslim enemy in Pakistan which incidently was a former ally against soviets)
3. To drag (nuclear)Pakistan out of Chinese sphere of influence.
4. To prevent nukes from falling in the hands of radicles.
5. (of secondry importance) Use Pakistan as a gateway for Central Asian oil.

To court Pakistan the US will be pumping in billions of dollars plus advance military hardware and all of which will have one single target........India. India's biggest security nightmare is to have Pakistan and China knocking on India's doors, one on the east and other on the west. China is a military gaint and Pakistan has the access to US technology and support plus the support of the Muslim world.

To prevent this from happening India has two options:
1. To form an alliance with the US to deter China.
2. Failing option #1 India should seek to enter into some sort of understanding with China and join a Russia lead (BRIC) alliance that would put Pakistan and US in the same camp poised againts a gaint alliance of Russia-China-India-Brazil. (Which would be America's worst nightmare).

As the US remain preoccupied with Iraq, Afganistan, Iran and Pakistan it losses precious time amd money even as China is gaining a toehold in its diplomacy vis-à-vis India where the US should have ideally won hands down.

[RebelTex]

"And whose side do you think the US would take? Can you state it a bit more clearly?"

I think that if we took India's side, it would likely enrage Muslims throughout the mid-East and really hurt the WOT.  (The WOT is a big factor, IMO, and from my perspective, may influence us to lean towards Pakistan more.)   OTOH, if we supported Pakistan, that might push India right into the open arms of China.  A real Hobson's choice.  I can't see any benefit either way, a lose-lose proposition.

China, however, has pretty close ties to both countries and appears to be trying to strengthen them, especially with India.  Given China's apparent overall goal to become the next superpower, this needs careful monitoring.

If all out war between those two countries did break out, I think we would attempt to mediate, not taking either side, and exert pressure on both to end the conflict.  However, if China jumps in on either side, it's a whole new ballgame.  I think we would pretty much be forced into supporting the opposite side, whichever side that might be.  So, the question should probably be: which side would China support?  Whichever side they choose, you can bet it will be the one that benefits them and hurts our interests the most.  I don't think it matters which side, though, because we would still be caught in the middle.

The only sensible thing for us, IMO, is to stay on top of the situation, improve relations with both India and Pakistan as much as possible, try to avert friction or war between the two, and keep a close eye on China.  Based on what it appears we are now doing (most of the above), we could probably increase our efforts at improving relations with India, which I believe was Jeff's point, in the first place.

Now that I've completely hedged all my bets, LOL, I'll clarify which I think we would have to choose.   I think that the War on Terror is so important and such a big factor, that, if we had to choose, we would be forced to choose Pakistan.  If China believes that Pakistan is a more valuable ally to her than India, then China might stay out of it.  As I stated in my previous post, I never claimed to have a vast and/or complete knowledge of south-Asian history.  I can't predict what China, Pakistan, or India will do, but only speculate about what they might do.

[Gengis Khan]

" I think that the War on Terror is so important and such a big factor, that, if we had to choose, we would be forced to choose Pakistan. "

Well you have cited a (very much) possible alternative course that the US may be willing to follow which brings me two my point..... and that is (as things stand currently) India cannot fully count on the US for support be it in a conflict with Pakistan or China. Although India must pursue the possibility of an alliance with the US to distance Pakistan from the US, we still must not completely shut the door to another possible alternative of BRIC alliance (Brazil-Russia-India-China) should the US throw its weight behind Pakistan.

It would be highly unlikely that both China and US would support a quasi-file-state like Pakistan leaving India in the lurch. Should the US be compelled to support Pakistan for the cause of WOT, China might see for itself a window of oppurtunity to form a bigger and better alliance with India and would be only too happy to let go of a smaller/weaker Pakistan in favour of a mighter India-China alliance and needless to say Russia would be only to happy to lead such an allince and also act as a mediator-facilitator between India and China.

[RebelTex]

"Should the US be compelled to support Pakistan for the cause of WOT, China might see for itself a window of oppurtunity to form a bigger and better alliance with India and would be only too happy to let go of a smaller/weaker Pakistan in favour of a mighter India-China alliance and needless to say Russia would be only to happy to lead such an allince and also act as a mediator-facilitator between India and China."

I think you just hit the nail on the head and is what Jeff was warning about.  I think we are all agreed that the US needs to concentrate on improving relations with India and make every effort to moderate any friction between India and Pakistan.  As I said before, I think we should monitor this situation closely.

[Paul Ross]

You want a bigger navy? Shoot your grandparents.

All my grandparents have already long since gone to their reward. And they are greatly missed. Just how does "shooting" them do anything for the U.S. Navy???

What are you selling? Are you preaching some sort of wierd Malthusian economic notions, and hence volunteering to be shot yourself?

[Paul Ross]

I think we are all agreed that the US needs to concentrate on improving relations with India and make every effort to moderate any friction between India and Pakistan.

Sukhoi...can we effectively pursue this policy? Will people in South Asia understand that we are attempting to maintain the long-run peace the best we can, and hence understand why we may not be as supportive of any individual country as we might otherwise, in isolation, wish to be?

Or would you recommend just chucking real-politik and going for pure philosophically-alligned national friendship..."national interest" be damned...

[sukhoi-30mki]

You should look at things on the "ground" now-

1.The US is selling arms to Pakistan at a slightly constrained rate,though these will easily be their best weapon systems.

2.China is continuing arms sales to Pakistan & it's increasing as you saw in earlier posts over the past 40 years.

3.The US is offering pretty huge packages(atleast on paper) to India ranging from space cooperation,Civilian nuclear reactors & large scale military cooperation-from potential sale of fighter aircraft,army & navy helos etc & Indo-US military exercises aim at joint-operations be it against WMD & ordinary terrorism.

4.Make no mistake,Sino-Indo ties are improving,but these military exercises are purely cosmetic eyecandy ops .You can check up FR's search page on how the PRC is encircling India.

Your logic on the US & China having to choose sides in any Indo-Pak conflict is well,lacking in substance.First of all,since the 1999 Kargil war,the US has adopted the role of conciliator between the 2 & was instrumental in avoiding military action between the 2 in 2002.If Pakistan launches a war against India & full scale hostilities ensue(naval action & strikes across international borders along Punjab & Rajasthan),the chance is that Pakistan will be close to using nukes ie.it will have to team up with India.& We all know the US is fearful of just that.OTOH,the PRC would keep Pakistan supplied,because the last thing it needs is India to remain unscathed.A lot of folks forget that both India & China are competing for oil deposits in Africa,Iran & Central Asia as well as mineral wealth of the Indian Ocean.If Pakistan doesn't exist,The PRC loses a very potent buffer-just like it would if North Korea collapses.That's precisely the reason why China is building naval facilities in Burma & Thailand as well as upgrading ties with (a rapidly Islamising)Bangladesh.

About having Muslim agitators,well buddy,Pakistan is MUSLIM-they launched all 4 wars against India & If you didn't know,India's nuke programme was initiated in 1964 with China in mind.Need I say more......