Posted on 05/30/2005 7:32:38 AM PDT by Jeff Head
Sources in Delhi said the recent visit to India of Chinese People’s Liberation Army Chief of Staff General Liang Guangli was aimed at working on an improved protocol described as "confidence building measures" between the two militaries, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
This is the first visit of a Chinese chief of staff in seven years. It is assumed by intelligence analysts that the Chinese and Indians are developing a protocol to prevent of accidental use of WMDs.
But what if it is more than that?
The warming of relations between China and India, the world's two biggest nations, is giving intelligence analysts in the West nightmares.
India, whose population is expected to surpass China's 1.2 billion some time in the next decade or two, has stopped eyeing Beijing as enemy No. 1.
In one of his meetings earlier this year with a top Indian official, the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, is reported to have remarked: "When we shake hands, the whole world will be watching."
Indeed he was right.
Together, the populations of the two giants equals more than a third of all the people on earth.
Without worrying about a threat from India, China is free to consider expansionist policies including, but not limited to, a move against Taiwan.
Separately, both China and India are becoming economic powerhouses. Together, acting in concert, they can make each other stronger – and the leaders of both nations openly acknowledge their preferences for cooperation rather than confrontation in what is being characterized as the dawn of the "Asian Century."
The US knows as does many folks in India that Pakistan is useful as long as Musharaff has head on his shoulders-the rest is just left to the future.The vast majority of the Pakistani military is still Islamised & if any of the democratic parties come to power,those folks just won't be able to keep the radical Slammics at bay.The US relationship with Pakistan as some Indian commentator once said acidly is "an extended one-night stand".The irony is that the main source of Pakistan's problems as well as it's only logical (short-term) solution is the Army.It was under Musharraf's mentor,Zia Ul Haq,that the process of latent Islamisation of the officer corps began & cultivation of radical Islamic groups to take on the Soviets & India took place.On the other hand,Beijing has considerable influence among Pakistan's military & that hasn't looked like waning.
The US-India relationship has much more substance & long-term potential to it for a number of reasons,one of which is obviously China.Folks like Farah leave out Chinese expansionism in the Indian ocean as it will complicate the perfect equation he peddles to his readers.The point here is that the US will have to play a careful balancing act,but it's obvious that the level of trust in Pakistan is anything but high.
Gender selection abortions on girls must already
be common in India. The biggest consumers of
gender selection ultrasounds in the NW US are
women from India living in Canada.
China building "naval facilities in Thailand" should read as China building facilities in Cambodia which is not exactly far from India's sphere of influence.China though is courting Thailand,a traditional US ally & has infact sold considerable amounts of weaponry to Bangkok.
"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?"
Diplomatic balancing acts are always the most difficult political rope-walk. If you ask me (since I am an Indian) I can tell you that Indians hates this kind of bipartisan attitude of the US and we are investing a lot time and effort of get out of this Indo-Pak hyphenated relationship. We are hoping it would work or else its back to the days of Clinton administration when India and US were complete strangers. (In fact Clinton had to bear the embarrasment of having to visit a country on whom the US till then had imposed tough ecomomic.)
"Or would you recommend just chucking real-politik and going for pure philosophically-alligned national friendship..."national interest" be damned..."
It will be the US that will have to decide for itself what best for its national interest......an alliance with India or a hyphenated Indo-Pak equidistance playing both sides.
tough economic sanctions.
I important factor we left out and that is Pakistan as Sukhoi-30MKI rightly pointed out. The US may choose Pakistan as an ally, but who much realible an ally do you think Pakistan might turn out to be? Will/can Pakistan be a reliable ally? A recent poll conducted in many countries (there is a thread here at FR on that) suggested that Pakistan was the worlds most anti-American country and add to that it also has the highest number of madrasas anywhere in the world. How long before Musharraf is assasinated and the Mullahs take over and turn the tables on the US. Would it be wise to depend on such an ally? Would it be worth choosing Pakistan over India?
These are questions US will have to ponder.
"What are you selling? Are you preaching some sort of wierd Malthusian economic notions, and hence volunteering to be shot yourself?"
To afford a big-enough navy, we're going to have to eliminate "entitlements." The biggest share of "entitlement spending" goes to senior citizens. They will not quietly give up those "entitlements."
If it is a matter of the survival of the Republic, senior citizens are a lesser priority than the military. If they refuse to make way for the real needs of the Republic, that is constructive treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
"Will/can Pakistan be a reliable ally? ... How long before Musharraf is assasinated and the Mullahs take over and turn the tables on the US."
Excellent questions and valid points. And as you pointed out: "Diplomatic balancing acts are always the most difficult political rope-walk." (I've never been good at walking a tight-rope, heheh.)
If Pakistan suddenly turned on us (for whatever reason), I think you would see an immediate positive upgrade in Indo-US relations. But for now, the current situation with Afghanistan and the WOT means we probably have to continue walking the tight-rope.
To sukhoi-30mki:
"The US-India relationship has much more substance & long-term potential ..."
Agreed.
"Your logic on the US & China having to choose sides in any Indo-Pak conflict is well,lacking in substance. ...the US has adopted the role of conciliator between the 2 ..."
Isn't that what I said in post # 137: "...the US needs to concentrate on improving relations with India and make every effort to moderate any friction between India and Pakistan."
"...the chance is that Pakistan will be close to using nukes ie.it will have to team up with India."
Please clarify, who is the 'it' you said would have to team up with India?
"About having Muslim agitators,well buddy,Pakistan is MUSLIM..."
Yes, they are, and India has a Muslim minority that has caused both sides problems, especially along their border and could be the match that lights the powder keg.
As for the background info that you and others have provided, I welcome all chances to increase my knowledge and understanding of the situation. Thank you and the others for your input.
Look, I was posting to another FReeper and the entire context of our posts was strictly economic. Then you bust in with an attitude about foreign entanglements. I pretty much ignored what you wrote in that one and this one. See ya.
The "IT" here is the US,which has already expressed concern about the safety of Pakistani nukes more than once & several folks have called on & state that the US will have to join up with India & Israel to ensure that Pakistan's nukes stay there & out of use.
About the role of conciliator,you have to remember that much of America's current policies towards Pakistan have essentially been altered by Sept-11th.The US in 1999 had a clear bias towards the Indian position.The US may not openly consider Pakistan as hostile but neither is there a requisite degree of trust(one reason why Pakistan will always remain a Chinese ally).
India's Muslims have a substantial presence in only one state(out of 4) bordering Pakistan,Jammu & Kashmir.If you think India's muslims were the ones stirring up trouble all this while,how can you explain-
1.The fact that the overall frequency of terror attacks in J & K has gone down since Sept 11th & the US had been pressuring Pakistan to shut terrorist training camps since then??
2.How is that many of the groups operating in India have their main operational centres & recruitment drives in Rawalpindi,Lahore,Quetta among other places in Pakistan???How is that their leaders are mainly Pakistan who have intimate ties to the Pakistani military??
3.Why is that,since terrorism began 15 years ago,the frequency of attacks goes up from the end of February to the end of November??Clue-The ice on various mountain passes on the borders melt,enabling easier infiltration as well as more accurate use of field artillery(by the Pakistani army) to cover for infiltrators.
4.How is it that Foreigners including Arabs,Chechens,North Africans & Bosnians get killed by Indian forces in J & K??Such people in normal circumstances can't enter the place.How is that most militants in the region have timers or explosive devices or weaponry which is of Pakistani or Chinese (used by the Pakistani military) origin.
Paul, here is the quandry. If you go the state department way, you are basically equating India and Pakistan...and keeping things status-quo. Can't happen...India is much to dynamic. In other words, India will be shooting for the moon and beyond while Pakitan is busy "buying" american arms to keep pace with India. Actually, you and I buy american arms for Pakistan...and Indian blood is on our hands due to this state department policy. The war on terror can only be won if we take out the saudis and pakistanis. Their governments are in our pocket. And, it is that fact that leads their population to seek our blood at any cost. Flying planes in buildings is just one manisfistation of their blood-lust. The US will never be able to end the blood lust. Israel has tried it for 40+ years, Indian's have tried it for 200+ years...both nations have been suffered un-told losses. The Harvard / Yale / Stanford educated state department officers just don't get it. They are a products of US wins in WWII, and the cold war...dealing with the muslims is entirely different. Lastly, the US has to make a choice...it's either India (democracy / liberty / free will) or apeasment of Islamic terror. The choice is simple. Unless ofcourse, you are Anakin Skywalker...lol
"If you think India's muslims were the ones stirring up trouble all this while..."
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that only India's Muslims were the ones stirring up trouble, nor that the border was the only location. I've seen a number of news articles over the last few years that reported on border skirmishes and that some Muslims from both sides of the border were responsible for instigating the trouble. (I know, I know - why should I believe anything that the MSM puts out, lol.) I've also read news reports about various attacks and assassination attempts in various other parts of both countries. Clearly, the situation appears to be volatile.
Your points 1 - 4 appear to me to highlight our tenuous position and the political tightrope we must walk. IMO, as long as Musharraf can hold onto power and exert control over his military, we can keep a certain amount of support for the WOT and our efforts; and that makes it difficult to move too fast in fully supporting and aligning with India. However, if Musharraf loses power and/or control, then (IMO) we should definitely upgrade India relations quickly.
This is a very complex situation and I don't have near enough intel or expertise for suggesting courses of action. However, I try to understand the issues with the info I have & can find. Please don't take my opinions and suggestions as advise or authoritative info (yeah, like that's a real possibility, lol) - they are all just idle speculation.
I sure hope GWB and his advisors, the State Department, CIA, NSA, etc. have a good handle on it and a sound strategy for whatever develops. Thanks for the discussion.
thanx-anytime!!
There is no longer any such thing. Especially when you are venturing postulates of political effects from those "strictly economic" assumptions.
The "Rational Expectations" economics school is one example of the convergence and incorporation of various disciplines into the "political economy" stew.
Sorry to jump here uninvited, but I just wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with your post. The argument in defence of a US tilt to Pak is that the US needs Pak to fight the War on Terror - that without supporting Musharraf, Pak could end up ruled by Islamists. But this is what had been happening for years in US policy in the mideast - shore up dictators to ensure stability (and oil supplies). The reason Bush has been such an extraordinary president is that he has been the guy to stand up for democratic values and ditch a policy of supporting those who repress their own population. As Bush so eloquently said - US interests and values have become inextricably linked.
India is the US' natural ally. We share so many values - liberty, freedom of speech and democracy. We are multicultural nations unified under a single banner. Indian commitment to democracy alone makes it an obvious choice for support in the conflict with Pak - a military dictatorship. Yet, the US cannot make that commitment? Why?
What really concerns me is that I suspect Pak represents an awful but inescapable reality which totally undermines the Bush doctrine's contention that liberty and democracy breed peaceful, stable nations. The fact is that true democracy in Pak (and possibly many other predominantly Muslim countries) would most likely produce strongly Islamic governments with foreign policies opposed to US interests. How many other countries might this also be true of? If democracy is not our saviour, what is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.