You and me don’t need to do anything. India and Chinese government are working on the solution on the border disputes. How much will it be giving up and taking away from the dispute area depending on the negotiation. Those stupid Anti-China articles published on your media will worse the negotiation when Chinese Fen Qin’s have a chance to read them. Fen Qin are those nationalisms among young Chinese.
Recently I gone to colombo, there Indian tamils believe that India supplied huge economic support to srilanka to fight ltte and chinees is major weapons provider. so pls suggest better idea to please tamils in srilanka who lost their right to exist. As if now the impression of India in srilanka is a coward nation with disgrace, responsible for all this war in favour of one community sigalese in srilanka. So srilanka is not dumb its acting carefully between India and china to cash in. so its better India rather give strong warning to srilanka (than aid which doesnt any way reach tamils)that it can be harsh to its dictator and throw him away, if they go ahead with china. sorry thats what i observed there... but still i am not so good in this forum.. so tell me if i am wrong my friend.
China willing to work with India for South Asia peace
China on Tuesday underlined its role in South Asia, saying that as an “important member” of Asia it is willing to work with India for peace and stability in the sub-continent.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said China is committed to safeguarding peace and stability of Asia, including South Asia.
“I would like to say that China is one of the important members of Asia and we are committed to safeguarding peace and stability of Asia, including South Asia, with other countries to seek common development and this is in the common interest of all of us,” she told a media briefing here.
Her remarks came in response to a question on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s purported remarks in New Delhi on Monday.
Ms. Jiang also said China and India as emerging powers could work together for the common development of both the countries.
Reports of the death of the PLA’s naval expansion are exaggerated. Any lull in development is likely to prove temporary.
At a conference last summer, a respected China scholar stated flatly that the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) halted development of its submarine fleet after taking delivery of the last of its Russian-built Kilo-class diesel attack boats in 2006. From such leading indicators he concluded that Beijing can do little more than issue ‘hollow threats’ against US naval operations in Asia. And it’s ‘hyperbole’ to think the Chinese military can contest US Navy access to regional waters.
This autumn, in a similar vein, some maritime specialists in places like Washington and Newport have taken to pointing out that the PLAN has built no new destroyers for its surface fleet for five years. Such reports imply, without quite coming out and saying it, that Beijing's naval project has stalled or been deliberately terminated. If so, other seafaring nations like the United States and Japan can relax their guard, sparing taxpayers the expense and hazards of competing with China on the high seas.
We beg to differ.
To be sure, there’s a grain of truth to the speculation. Consider the no-new-submarines claim. The authoritative website GlobalSecurity.org shows that overall PLAN submarine totals remained nearly flat between 2007-2010. The subsurface fleet increased only marginally during this interval, rising from 62 to 63 boats. New construction barely outpaced the retirement of decrepit Cold War-era hulls.
But this is a momentary lull. Once the PLAN finishes shedding old assets, the submarine fleet will resume its upward trajectory. Estimates indicate that the navy will add 10 modern Song- and Yuan-class diesel subs by 2015 and an additional 10 by 2020. If such projections are accurate, the fleet will be 78 boats strong. Moreover, this leaves aside the possibility, fanned by photos now circulating among China-watchers, that the PLAN is preparing to unveil a new class of diesel boats based partly on older craft, partly on Russian designs.
By contrast, the Naval Vessel Register lists 54 US nuclear-powered attack submarines in commission, only 60 percent of which are stationed in the Pacific. This total may shrink given the strains on American acquisition budgets. Boat for boat, the US Navy undersea force remains superior to its emerging rival, but the weight of numbers is shifting increasingly toward China. This will remain true as long as the Chinese Navy remains concentrated in East Asia and the US Navy remains encumbered with worldwide commitments, attenuating the numbers available for deployment to any one trouble spot.
Next, consider surface combatants. A casual glance at Jane's Fighting Ships shows that destroyer construction has indeed ceased for now. Between 2001 and 2005, the PLAN laid down six guided-missile destroyer (DDG) keels, namely two Type 051C Luzhous, two Type 052B Luyang Is, and two Type 052C Luyang IIs. DDGs represent the core of Chinese surface action groups and can screen major platforms — Russian-built Sovremenny destroyers or, eventually, aircraft carriers — against air and submarine attack.
The PLAN touts the Luyang II as the equal of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the US Navy's premier Aegis surface combatant (though whether it will live up to this billing is another matter.) The last of these DDGs joined the surface fleet in early 2007.
But there’s more to fleet development than destroyers. Ship construction has not stopped altogether; it has merely shifted around. China continues to lay down hulls for Type 054A Jiangkai II-class guided-missile frigates (FFGs), the most advanced ships of their type in the PLAN inventory. These FFGs are now entering service. GlobalSecurity.org projects that 12 Jiangkais will be in service by this year, 22 by 2015. The surface fleet clearly is not stagnating despite the halt in production of top-end combatants.
As with the submarine fleet, isolated statistics deceive.
Moreover, China has been pouring resources into refurbishing the decommissioned Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, most likely as a training platform for naval aviators. The Varyag was reportedly completed without a propulsion plant and certainly suffered from years of neglect. Correcting such deficiencies consumes time, effort, and resources that might otherwise have gone into additional surface warships.
And this leaves aside the new-construction flattops Beijing has more or less admitted it’s pursuing. Competing demands on finite resources begin to explain China's on-and-off procurement process. Carrier construction is an enormous undertaking, and one that Chinese shipwrights have never before attempted. It is not at all surprising that the pace of manufacturing certain ship types would slacken to make way for high-profile projects like aircraft carriers.
Furthermore, the pause in destroyer construction would conform to the PLAN's history of ‘fleet experimentation.’ That is, the dearth of serious threats to maritime security affords the Chinese Navy the leisure to build small batches of ships of different configurations, take them to sea, evaluate their performance, and incorporate the lessons-learned into future classes. Shipbuilders thereby improve on strengths and compensate for past shortcomings.
That the PLAN simultaneously built two apiece of three classes of DDGs, then, is noteworthy. The Luyang II class in particular may be undergoing evaluation and redesign in keeping with longstanding practice. The likely result: a new, improved DDG.
This would fit another pattern in Chinese naval development: the trend toward larger-displacement warships. The PLAN has derived successively heavier and more sophisticated ships from the same basic hull design, much as the US Navy used the same hull for Spruance-class destroyers, Kidd-class guided-missile destroyers, and Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers from the 1970s through the 1990s. And indeed, judging from photos now making the rounds, it appears the PLAN may be pursuing combatants exceeding 10,000 tons' displacement.
These would be the biggest such vessels ever to slide down the ways in China. But such a bombshell would be nothing new. The PLAN sprang the Yuan submarine, the Type 022 Houbei fast patrol boat (a stealthy missile-armed catamaran), and the Luyang II itself on unsuspecting Western intelligence services. The only surprise would be if no further surprises lie in store. Serial production of heavy, long-range escorts is a logical step for Beijing as it lays the groundwork for aircraft-carrier task forces.
And the cautious, methodical approach to fleet development allows the Chinese naval leadership to hedge against premature investment in poor designs and systems. The reputation of the Chinese military-industrial complex for manufacturing substandard equipment confirms the wisdom of the go-slow approach. For example, China's Xia-class nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine has never conducted a single deterrent patrol since its debut in the 1980s. The Xia has been plagued by shoddy engineering and will likely be retired without ever performing its primary mission. Prudence inclines Chinese officials to guard against similar debacles.
In other words, the PLAN has been exploring a wide array of ship classes, combat systems, and weaponry, picking and choosing those best suited to Beijing's operational and strategic needs. The evident pause in construction is probably a gestation period while the naval establishment debates the pros and cons of certain technologies. It’s far too soon for the United States and its Asian allies and friends to heave a sigh of relief. The safest assumption for Western strategists is that Beijing's naval quest is simply entering another phase.
James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara are associate professors of strategy at the Naval War College and co-authors of Red Star over the Pacific: China’s Rise and the Challenge to US Maritime Strategy. The views voiced here are theirs alone.
for countering china we should be prepared internally first.. bag deals from neighboring countries just like how they are doing. expand influence, help others. and for all that we should be in that good conditions. Once we can match their level. India should start talking with China on tibet. Recently China mention a part of Kashmir as North Pakistan. India should talk about recognizing Tibet and Taiwan as independent if China does such mistakes intentionally.
ASEAN to bring in US as counterbalance to China
(AP) – 5 hours ago
HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Southeast Asian nations are welcoming the United States into their club, a move seen as bringing a counterweight to China following a series of aggressive maritime moves by Beijing.
The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, will formally invite the U.S. and Russia to join their annual East Asian Summit on Saturday in the Vietnamese capital.
During a stop in Hawaii en route to Hanoi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stressed that the U.S. would remain a major power in the Asia-Pacific region and called on China to expand cooperation with Washington.
"It is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries," she said.
Southeast Asian nations have become increasingly rattled in recent months, accusing China of being a bully following a series of territorial spats on the high seas, including run-ins with Vietnam and a nasty row with Japan.
China has strongly pushed to keep territorial disputes over islands in the South China Sea out of talks held by ASEAN, preferring instead to deal with clashes one on one. But the smaller countries have refused to back down.
"ASEAN should have one voice before we venture (into) talking to other claimants," Philippine President Benigno Aquino III said, adding that he and other Southeast Asian leaders aired concerns during a dinner Thursday centered around maintaining peace and keeping busy shipping lanes open in the South China Sea.
At another meeting in Hanoi this summer, Clinton enraged China by announcing that the U.S. has a national interest in seeing territorial disputes in the South China Sea resolved, ensuring shipping lanes remain open and that navigation within international waters be free for everyone.
China has laid claim to strategically placed and potentially oil-rich islands in the South China Sea, but parts of the territory are also claimed by several Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam.
The invitation to the U.S. to join what had been an Asian-only event comes at an anxious time for the region. The East Asian grouping comprises the Southeast Asian countries along with six others including India, Australia, and Japan. With many nations unnerved by China's accruing power and its more assertive behavior, they are turning to the U.S. to moderate, but not squeeze out, China.
"If the U.S. and China maintain stable relations, then everyone wins. But if the two have tensions, then everyone loses. It's the balance of power that creates the peace," said Huang Jing, a Chinese politics expert at the National University of Singapore.
Meanwhile, China and Japan met Friday in an attempt to repair relations soured by a maritime territorial dispute, with Japan also asking for the lifting of a block on exports of rare earth metals crucial to its high-tech manufacturing.
Japanese companies have said those exports were frozen after the dispute flared up in September, though the Beijing government denied that it has blocked the exports.
China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and his Japanese counterpart Seiji Maehara went into private talks on the sidelines of a regional Asian summit, hoping to lay the foundation for a meeting between Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Naoto Kan.
"The discussion took place in a good atmosphere. It was held calmly while both sides said what we should say. I believe it is likely that the leaders of China and Japan will hold a meeting here in Hanoi," Maehara told reporters after the hour-plus talks.
The two countries have sought to repair ties brought to a new low after a Chinese fishing trawler collided with Japanese patrol boats last month near disputed islands in the East China Sea. Tensions have remained high, despite Japan's release of the boat captain, with anti-Japanese protests flaring up in cities across China.
Japan also asked China to reopen talks on the joint development of gas fields in the East China Sea, Maehara said. Beijing suspended the talks during the spat.
A day earlier, Maehara met with Clinton in Hawaii, where she said the restrictions on rare earth metals served as a "wake-up call" for the global high-tech industry to diversify its suppliers. China currently produces 97 percent of the world's rare earth metals, used in everything from laptops to cell phones.
China said Thursday it will not use the metals as a "bargaining tool."
Tokyo recently said it planned to mine rare earths in Vietnam as a way to reduce its dependence on China.
Maehara also said that Japan "repeated its position firmly" regarding the territorial issue over the East China Sea islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Both countries claim the islands.
Japan on Tuesday said it was considering increasing the size of its navy submarine fleet amid growing concerns that China's maritime muscle is becoming too strong and could tip the balance of power in the Pacific, where the United States also maintains a strong presence.
‘US, Russia join Asia club in a blow to China’
Updated on Friday, October 29, 2010, 15:46
Hanoi: The United States and Russia will be formally welcomed into a 16-nation Asian bloc on Saturday, in what analysts say, is a blow to Chinese attempts to diminish US influence in the region.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will be invited to join the East Asia Summit when the group holds its annual summit in Hanoi on Saturday.
Their entry into the EAS, which elevates its diplomatic heft, comes despite Chinese attempts to promote another grouping, which does not include the US, as the region's premier forum for regional cooperation.
"China will be very uneasy", said John Lee, a China expert at Australia's Centre for Independent Studies think-tank.
"This all points to a significant blow to China's broader competitive strategy in Asia, which is designed to gradually ease America out of the region in the longer term," he said.
Established in 2005, the EAS is a forum for dialogue on strategic, political and economic issues involving the 10 ASEAN members as well as Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.
US membership "is part of the American strategic 'coming back' to Southeast Asia, to balance China's growing influence in Southeast Asia," said Li Mingjian from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
Russia's admittance to the EAS club is much less controversial, with analysts saying its importance lies in energy exports and acting as a deterrent, to Sino-American rivalry dominating the bloc.
Russia and the US will officially join the EAS at the next meeting in Indonesia in 2011, enabling US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev to attend as full members that year.
ink of it as Harvard's Indian summer. Earlier this month, the industrialist Anand Mahindra donated $10 million to support the teaching of the humanities at his alma mater, the largest gift to the program in the university's 374-year history. Barely two weeks later, the $70 billion salt-to-steel Tata Group plonked down $50 million for Harvard Business School, the biggest international donation since the school's founding.
In the not too distant future, then, Harvard students will likely grapple with Homer and Shakespeare at the newly renamed Mahindra Humanities Center. For others, the first brush with HBS's famous case study method may well be at a new building named Tata Hall.
In a status-conscious society with a yen for education, it's hardly surprising that economic growth has released a gusher of giving toward the Ivy League. In recent years, Indian corporate largesse has also benefited, among others, Yale, Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania. But these gifts also illustrate a broader phenomenon: India's growing soft power.
The most obvious signs are hard to miss. In recent years, Bollywood-themed dances have invaded wedding celebrations from Sydney to San Francisco. In Britain, curry houses employ more than 100,000 people and generate about £3.5 billion ($5.5 billion) of business each year. And if Yoga Journal is to be believed, an estimated 15.8 million Americans can tell a corpse pose from a downward-facing dog. Indian-born CEOs head such iconic global companies as PepsiCo, Citigroup and MasterCard. In the arts, reports of Indian writers scooping up literary prizes and directors helming big ticket-movies in Hollywood have almost become commonplace.
The contrast with Asia's other giant is striking. In the 21 years since the image of a solitary protestor's heroic attempt to halt a column of tanks near Tiananmen Square seared itself into the world's imagination, China has strived to associate itself with development rather than repression. For many people, the 2008 Beijing Olympics—with their dazzling buildings and clockwork efficiency—symbolized the fruition of that effort.
But the Games also underscored just how much China's ongoing image makeover depends on the government rather than on private initiative. The imposing Chinese pavilion at the Shanghai Expo, the 300-odd Confucius Institutes promoting Chinese language and culture around the world, traveling museum exhibits extolling the 15th century seafarer Admiral Zheng He, lavish aid packages for resource-rich African countries and China Central Television's ambitious global footprint all tell the same tale.
Scholars and journalists alike tend to make much of China's vaunted "charm offensive." It turns out, however, that when it comes to winning hearts and minds—at least democratic hearts and minds—China's top down state-led model is not much of a match for India's decentralized private effort.
In terms of goodwill, India bests China in both Western and Eastern democracies. For instance, according to a poll released last month by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Americans place India in the same ballpark as long-term allies South Korea and Israel. China elicits only about as much warmth as Venezuela and Mexico.
A recent BBC World Service poll of 28 countries says more or less the same thing. On average, more than half of Americans, Britons and Canadians feel "mainly positive" about India; only about one in six feel "mainly negative." With China the numbers are reversed. Barely one in three from the Anglophone countries feel mostly positive about the Middle Kingdom; for more than four in 10 the emotions evoked are negative. Similarly, more Japanese, Indonesians and South Koreans feel positively than negatively toward India; with China it's the opposite.
To be sure, we shouldn't read too much into these figures. For many people, India is probably more likeable in part because it's not nearly as threatening as a powerful, well-organized China. And East Asian hostility toward China likely reflects a certain amount of historical animosity. Moreover, in many of the surveyed parts of Africa and the Islamic world where democratic traditions are weak or nonexistent, India lags China in popularity and, presumably, influence.
Nonetheless, against the backdrop of a prolonged bout of self-flagellation brought on by the recently concluded Delhi Commonwealth Games, India ought to reflect on some of its strengths as well. For one, the country's shambolic democracy may drive the educated middle classes to despair, but it also appears to buy India a reservoir of goodwill around the world.
Second, the legacy of the colonial experience, though painful in many ways, has also proved to be a blessing. As an English speaking democracy, in soft power terms India punches above its economic weight.
And finally, the economic freedom unleashed two decades ago has done more to enhance India's standing in the world than the four decades of finger-stabbing moralizing that preceded it. If you don't believe this, all you need to do is visit a certain university in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
NEW DELHI: Army Chief General V K Singh has said India was "not sure" of China's intentions for developing infrastructure along the borders, but a repeat of the 1962 aggression was "never" possible.
Describing the regional security situation as "fragile," Singh said Pakistan Army's India-centric posturing and diversion of US counter-terrorism military aid against India were matters of concern.
"China is doing a great amount of infrastructure development, which it says is for locals of the area. No bones about it, no crib about it. But our problem is we are not very sure about the intentions. And when intentions change, with this capability, things can go wrong. And that is what is a matter of concern," he said.
"But, there is going to be no 1962. Never," he said, referring to the Chinese aggression of Indian territory that year.
Singh reasoned that he did not see the kind of signages of 1962 at present, as there were no military build up or territorial claims that were witnessed just before the only time the two countries went to war.
"Absolutely, with full conviction," he said, when asked if he was confident there would be no repeat of history.
"Things are better than what it was in 1962," he said, noting that situation along the borders was peaceful "to an extent" and the stand-offs were within the known parameters governed by Confidence Building Measures, with "nothing going astray".
There were also mechanisms between the two countries now to take care of such stand-offs. But there was a question mark over the intentions of China's infrastructure development, he said.
On regional security, Singh said, "Any country which has unsettled borders, which are undemarcated and with problems, the security situation in the overall calculus remains fragile. It remains a cause for concern and that is what it is."
On Pakistan, the Army Chief told the 'Devil's Advocate' talk show on CNN-IBN that "the major problem is that the terrorist infrastructure is intact (across the border)".
Pointing to Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani's remarks that his whole Army was India-centric, Singh said, "when you combine this (with the economic condition, terror and political uncertainty there), it means the following: That the proxy war will carry on. And they will keep looking for an alibi. And this is a matter of concern."
On the $2 billion American military aid to Pakistan for war against terror, Singh said all aid that were ever given to Pakistan were diverted against India and there were credible inputs to support this charge.
"Historically, all aid that has ever come to Pakistan, for whatever purposes, despite the assurances, have been used against India. We have credible inputs to say that out of this assistance to fight terror in Afghanistan and coalition support, a fair amount is being funnelled for upgrading capability against India," the Army Chief said.
But, Singh said, India was not concerned over build up of capabilities of the Pakistan Army by inducting new technology and that it was ready to meet the challenge.
"Pakistan is doing the same and we are doing the same. I am not really much concerned about where they have gone. But what I am concerned is that I should be able to meet the type of threat that comes up. Let me assure you, we are prepared to meet any challenge that comes to our nation," Singh said.
On the possibility of a two-front war with Pakistan and China, Singh said the Army was capable of meeting any threat that the country may face, whether on one side of the border or on two sides.
"But time will decide. I am quite sure our political and diplomatic initiatives will be able to mesh in with what we want to do militarily and achieve right type of results that is required by the country," he said.
Nothing is illegal about Arunachal being a part of India, even in the British times. It sure is better than the imperialistic annexation and adventures pursued historically in China where in a small area North of the Yellow River emerged as the monolith it is today.
Since you are a Johnny Come Lately to this forum, please read the threads on China and the debates thereof on Chinese expansionism since it would not be worth informing every Chinese who suddenly surfaces with the usual brew, of the same refrain that has been stated ad infintum!
We have also discussed ‘teaching a lesson’ concept of China. If it were not to capture territory, then why hang around in Aksai Chin et al? As for the NE withdrawal by the Chinese and the rationale has also been discussed.
We don’t understand the Chinese mindset. How do you claim that “you took somebody’s property by mistake”? What makes you feel that it is Chinese territory? Is it your expansionist mindset speaking? I agree that ‘You cannot take somebody’s property forever by keeping argue with baseless points’. Sure. So, quit daydreaming and smoking the best of Afghanistan.
India has never interfered in matters of Sovereign Nations. Just as I feel Bengalis(Hindus) in Bangladesh had the time and honor to choose India over Bangladesh(then Pakistan) in 1947, same is the case with Tamils in Sri Lanka.