China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Korea

AVERAGE INDIAN

EXORCIST
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
3,326
Likes
5,408
Country flag
China is tracking the developments with a wary eye as India plans to host the heads of governments of South Korea and Japan

New Delhi: India is set to host the heads of governments from two key North Asian countries this month—South Korea and Japan—a development not lost on Asian power house China, which is tracking the developments with a wary eye, analysts and people close to the development say.

Two articles by the Chinese ambassador to India, Wei Wei—one in the Hindu newspaper on deepening India-China relations and the second in The Indian Express about Japan's recent actions "implementing its right-wing doctrine by trying to get rid of the post-war order"—are a reflection of that wariness, say people close to the developments.

In the article published in the Hindu, Wei Wei focused on India-China relations—the number of exchanges and meetings between the top leaders of the Asian giants in 2013, the "converging" economic interests of the two countries, and increased collaboration in international affairs.

He also wrote on the significance of the year 2014, which has been announced by both sides as the "Year of Friendly Exchanges" between India and China, besides marking 60 years of the enunciation of "Panchsheel", or the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence governing India-China relations since 1954.

Wei Wei's article in The Indian Express, in contrast, speaks of how 2013 was the year of development and cooperation for Asia, a major engine of the world economy, and how for "Asian emerging economies like China and India" it is important to "seize the hard-won economic recovery tendency and enhance mutually beneficial cooperation and push forward the reform of international financial regulatory system".

In the same article, Wei Wei also berates the present Japanese leadership for fiercely implementing its right-wing doctrine by amending its pacifist Constitution and developing into a "military power", which he says "obviously runs against the world trend of pursuing development and enhancing world economic recovery".

The article also recalls how India and China "have made important contribution to the fight against the Japanese militarist aggression in World War II."

People close to the development agreed that Wei Wei's articles—a rare development— do reflect a concern in China that India is "being courted by countries like Japan and South Korea".

One of the people cited above pointed out that the issues referred to by Wei Wei in the second article were essentially subjects between Japan and China.

"But the Chinese are wary of what India's views may be on the subjects between China and Japan. Countries like South Korea and Japan are looking at India as a regional player," this person said, adding China had keenly watched Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Japan last year.

India, Japan and South Korea each have their own problems with the rising giant China that is viewed by many countries in the region and beyond as unpredictable.

For India, the biggest irritant bedevilling ties is the unresolved border issue dating back to the brief but bitter 1962 conflict between India and China. South Korea sees China as the main backer of the nuclear armed communist administration in North Korea presently headed by Kim Jong-Un.

Japan's political tensions with China, dating back to World War II, spilled over most recently after the election of the India-friendly Shinzo Abe in December 2012.

Recent tensions spiked over competing claims over a group of islands in East China Sea that the Japanese call the Senkaku and the Chinese call the Daioyu.

In November, China tried to establish its authority over the islands by demanding that all aircraft flying in the region obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures". This was followed by the Japanese cabinet in December approving the country's first-ever national-security strategy that calls for a more proactive approach to security despite Japan's post-World War II pacifist constitution.

Last week, visiting Japanese defence minister Itsunori Onodera discussed the national security strategy with his Indian host A.K. Antony. Following the talks, Indian officials said India had extended an invitation to the Japanese navy to take part in exercises along with the US and Indian navies scheduled for later this year. The three countries already have a trilateral dialogue mechanism in place and discuss strategic issues under its ambit.

China has maritime disputes with a number of other countries in South East Asia as well, including the Philippines and Vietnam. In contrast, Japan-India ties have warmed considerably since Abe took office. After taking over, Abe's cabinet gave its go-ahead for a visit to India by Japanese emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko. The invite from India had been pending for a decade and the visit took place in November.

India's gesture was to invite Abe to be the chief guest at India's Republic Day celebrations on 26 January, which a key Japanese politician last week described as "an epic signal" of the strengthening of India-Japan ties. India also has defence agreements with Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, South Korea and Thailand.

A second person familiar with the developments said China's ties with Japan and the region were far more complex given the deep interlinkages between the Chinese economy and the economies of the other countries in North and Southeast Asia. Bilateral trade between China and Japan was almost $330 billion in 2012 with Japan being China's second-largest trading partner. India had a long way to go before it can catch up with such statistics, the person said.

According to Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor of East Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, "There is concern about a rising China in the region. That China will also look for ways to reduce influences between countries for the success of Chinese goals is also to be expected," he said.

"If I were the prime minister, I would look at who brings what to the table. Chinese trade gap with India (in 2012) was $24 billion. Their investment in India is $240 million. There has been talk of Chinese setting up industrial parks in India but that (has) not materialised," Kondapalli said, adding that India should look at what suits its national interests best.

"India needs $1 trillion in investment in infrastructure and investments in manufacturing. Japan has promised $92 billion in infrastructure (the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor), which is one-tenth of the investment India is looking for. There are some 900 Japanese companies in India. And during Abe's visit India and Japan will announce the launch of the Bangalore-Chennai highspeed railway. The trade gap with Japan is no where near as large as with China and whatever the deficit, Japan makes up by investments into India. With South Korea too, the story is similar (with that of Japan) in terms of investment and trade," Kondapalli said.

China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan and South Korea - Livemint
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan South Kor

well done

we can then have india japan s korea vietnam vs china packland and sri wanka
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,010
Likes
2,308
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan South Kor

Well, that is why India sucks in its foreign policy.
Bring Japan and south korea into a single alliance against China? Even USA can't make that happen after 60 years effort! Good luck!

What always make me laughing is: Indians think that they can build up an military and political alliance against Chinese by offering nothing but empty words.
 

aerokan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,024
Likes
817
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan South Kor

Well, that is why India sucks in its foreign policy.
Bring Japan and south korea into a single alliance against China? Even USA can't make that happen after 60 years effort! Good luck!

What always make me laughing is: Indians think that they can build up an military and political alliance against Chinese by offering nothing but empty words.
Sure buddy!! I would request GOI to give information about Indian strategic offerings along with military blueprints of attack formations next time we think of making any alliances. Will that suffice or you would like the entire discussion transcript along with the mind-reading signals of the leaders as well? Let me know. Will be happy to add that to the list to get from GOI to be sent to you.. BTW, please send in your co-ordinates so that GOI can mail you the entire information.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Remember that if India decides to coordinate its land forces with Japanese naval and air pressure, China will offer Pakistan advanced nuclear warheads and launch systems to ensure that India is removed from the table as soon as possible in any conflict. Then the tie-up with Japan would be a net loss for India, as India would have ensured its (limited) nuclear arsenal becomes split in the event of any real conflict.
 

northernarunachalpradesh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
367
Likes
278
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Remember that if India decides to coordinate its land forces with Japanese naval and air pressure, China will offer Pakistan advanced nuclear warheads and launch systems to ensure that India is removed from the table as soon as possible in any conflict. Then the tie-up with Japan would be a net loss for India, as India would have ensured its (limited) nuclear arsenal becomes split in the event of any real conflict.
What u want to NUKE yoursefl commie.do u really belive indian nuclear arsenal is limited?can you tell me how much is limited commie?

IF any country launches nuclear weapons Russia,US will park all their weapons in that country.dont dream of nuclear war.
 
Last edited:

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

What u want to NUKE yoursefl commie.do u really belive indian nuclear arsenal is limited?can you tell me how much is limited commie?
150 warheads - then assume an average 50-75kt yield (if the total weapon-ready fissile material output of India's nuclear plants is split equally among all warheads). The fissile material output, by the way, can be independently verified with orbital and other assets that look at radiation emissions against background radiation levels on Earth, as well as by tracking electricity voltage and wattage levels exiting a nuclear power facility (which HUMINT or cyber can do ridiculously easily - you've never seen armed guards frisking people if they go near a substation, have you?).

Now split that 50-50 between Pakistan and China. 75 warheads against Pakistan, assuming a 20% attrition rate (due to factors as varied as poor maintenance on missiles/warheads to sabotage to active intercept), gets you 60 warheads impacting to cause an estimated 8-10m direct casualties and destruction of 25-35% of Pakistan's urban area. 75 warheads against China would have a much higher attrition rate, since China has a functional ABM system surrounding key cities, and Indian warheads cannot hit China from a depressed trajectory unless India puts its (few, noisy, slow) SSBNs in the South China Sea (the happy hunting ground of over 24 Chinese attack submarines and 20 ASW destroyers/frigates.) Ergo, India could possibly get 50% of its warheads into China (generous assumption); this gets 38 warheads impacting to cause an estimated 5-7m direct casualties and destruction of less than 7% of China's urban area. China, by contrast, would fire about 100-150 warheads in depressed trajectories from mobile launchers in the Tibetan Plateau; the average yield of Chinese 'retaliatory' warheads (those for countervalue as opposed to tactical strikes) is over 2MT. India would lose over a third of its urban area and suffer nearly 50m casualties in the process. The math simply doesn't work out for India at this time.

The other thing here is that even though you can argue global opinion will be tilted against China going into the match, it will be tilted against India coming out of the match as India basically dragged a third country into a nuclear conflict against it out of spite; India will look irresponsible to the world and downright evil to China. The PLA would, in all likelihood, invade and permanently occupy NE India for 'reparations'; India would be helpless absent US/Russian intervention since its current doctrine calls for all its corps to march west for a joyride in Pakland following nuke strikes.

Granted, India could develop its military in ways that alter the calculus above, but that's a question of speculation rather than facts.

The other thing to note China can always use Pakistan to cause more and more pressure to India than India can use Japan to cause on China (or vice versa), since Indo-Pakistani relations are infinitely more fraught than Sino-Japanese relations, and a dovish Japanese PM will dial back pressure on China (due to powerful trade incentives) in ways that a dovish Pakistani PM will not (what is there to gain for Pakistan?).
 

northernarunachalpradesh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
367
Likes
278
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

150 warheads - then assume an average 50-75kt yield (if the total weapon-ready fissile material output of India's nuclear plants is split equally among all warheads). The fissile material output, by the way, can be independently verified with orbital and other assets that look at radiation emissions against background radiation levels on Earth, as well as by tracking electricity voltage and wattage levels exiting a nuclear power facility (which HUMINT or cyber can do ridiculously easily - you've never seen armed guards frisking people if they go near a substation, have you?).

Now split that 50-50 between Pakistan and China. 75 warheads against Pakistan, assuming a 20% attrition rate (due to factors as varied as poor maintenance on missiles/warheads to sabotage to active intercept), gets you 60 warheads impacting to cause an estimated 8-10m direct casualties and destruction of 25-35% of Pakistan's urban area. 75 warheads against China would have a much higher attrition rate, since China has a functional ABM system surrounding key cities, and Indian warheads cannot hit China from a depressed trajectory unless India puts its (few, noisy, slow) SSBNs in the South China Sea (the happy hunting ground of over 24 Chinese attack submarines and 20 ASW destroyers/frigates.) Ergo, India could possibly get 50% of its warheads into China (generous assumption); this gets 38 warheads impacting to cause an estimated 5-7m direct casualties and destruction of less than 7% of China's urban area. China, by contrast, would fire about 100-150 warheads in depressed trajectories from mobile launchers in the Tibetan Plateau; the average yield of Chinese 'retaliatory' warheads (those for countervalue as opposed to tactical strikes) is over 2MT. India would lose over a third of its urban area and suffer nearly 50m casualties in the process. The math simply doesn't work out for India at this time.

The other thing here is that even though you can argue global opinion will be tilted against China going into the match, it will be tilted against India coming out of the match as India basically dragged a third country into a nuclear conflict against it out of spite; India will look irresponsible to the world and downright evil to China. The PLA would, in all likelihood, invade and permanently occupy NE India for 'reparations'; India would be helpless absent US/Russian intervention since its current doctrine calls for all its corps to march west for a joyride in Pakland following nuke strikes.

Granted, India could develop its military in ways that alter the calculus above, but that's a question of speculation rather than facts.

The other thing to note China can always use Pakistan to cause more and more pressure to India than India can use Japan to cause on China (or vice versa), since Indo-Pakistani relations are infinitely more fraught than Sino-Japanese relations, and a dovish Japanese PM will dial back pressure on China (due to powerful trade incentives) in ways that a dovish Pakistani PM will not (what is there to gain for Pakistan?).

only punjabi pakis and army is against us to keep them in job.sindh,balochistan and all other parts are pro india.


please get out of u r commie background of nuking otheres.

we dont need to nuke pakistan or we will never nuke them .please no one is afraid of nukes.please stop bitching about nukes ok.
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Aside from the (simple) military angle, the article also makes another point:

"If I were the prime minister, I would look at who brings what to the table. Chinese trade gap with India (in 2012) was $24 billion. Their investment in India is $240 million. There has been talk of Chinese setting up industrial parks in India but that (has) not materialised," Kondapalli said, adding that India should look at what suits its national interests best.

"India needs $1 trillion in investment in infrastructure and investments in manufacturing. Japan has promised $92 billion in infrastructure (the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor), which is one-tenth of the investment India is looking for. There are some 900 Japanese companies in India. And during Abe's visit India and Japan will announce the launch of the Bangalore-Chennai highspeed railway. The trade gap with Japan is no where near as large as with China and whatever the deficit, Japan makes up by investments into India. With South Korea too, the story is similar (with that of Japan) in terms of investment and trade," Kondapalli said.
This is a highly selective view of India's trade situation, which misses the following comparisons:

Export Import Data Bank

From Apr 2013 to Sep 2014, China and India had 31bn USD in trade; Japan and India had 8bn USD in trade. China bought 5.7bn USD worth of goods from India; Japan bought 3.4bn USD. By and large, China is the larger trader.

Both China and Japan have pledged large amounts of FDI in geographically oriented 'investment corridors' - China through the BCIM corridor; India through the Delhi-Mumbai corridor. While Japan does lead in terms of actual FDI on the ground, Kondapalli is comparing apples and oranges when he cites China's $240m in actual investments against Japan's $92bn in 'pledged' (not real) investment; he then applies double standards when he pooh-poohs China's investment talks while accepting Japan's pledged investment figure as fact.

While one could make a case that Japan should export capital to India (the demographics and macro situation favor that); China has a similar angle it can work with India (since it has a surplus of investment capital itself as well as an aging population).

In the end, India's best option is to play both sides of the fence here, without letting a (frankly anachronistic and meaningless) border dispute bleed into its larger decisions regarding how to position itself in Asia.

The last thing India should want to do is become the go-to land-power for containing China. Russia tried playing a similar role vis-a-vis Germany from 1890 to 1914, and again from 1922 to 1941, and both times, what Russia gained from the maritime powers for containing Germany were far less than the blood and treasure she lost to the German Army.
 

northernarunachalpradesh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
367
Likes
278
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Aside from the (simple) military angle, the article also makes another point:



This is a highly selective view of India's trade situation, which misses the following comparisons:

Export Import Data Bank

From Apr 2013 to Sep 2014, China and India had 31bn USD in trade; Japan and India had 8bn USD in trade. China bought 5.7bn USD worth of goods from India; Japan bought 3.4bn USD. By and large, China is the larger trader.

Both China and Japan have pledged large amounts of FDI in geographically oriented 'investment corridors' - China through the BCIM corridor; India through the Delhi-Mumbai corridor. While Japan does lead in terms of actual FDI on the ground, Kondapalli is comparing apples and oranges when he cites China's $240m in actual investments against Japan's $92bn in 'pledged' (not real) investment; he then applies double standards when he pooh-poohs China's investment talks while accepting Japan's pledged investment figure as fact.

While one could make a case that Japan should export capital to India (the demographics and macro situation favor that); China has a similar angle it can work with India (since it has a surplus of investment capital itself as well as an aging population).

In the end, India's best option is to play both sides of the fence here, without letting a (frankly anachronistic and meaningless) border dispute bleed into its larger decisions regarding how to position itself in Asia.

The last thing India should want to do is become the go-to land-power for containing China. Russia tried playing a similar role vis-a-vis Germany from 1890 to 1914, and again from 1922 to 1941, and both times, what Russia gained from the maritime powers for containing Germany were far less than the blood and treasure she lost to the German Army.
Whatz your problem man always ranting about war.Do you thing there is nothing else other than war.Please we are not raised like you we dont fear any one ,nor we try to intimidate others.we believe in soft power.

Are you here to warn us or what ? do you want us to be afraid of you ?even vietnam dont gove a shit about you.?

you should understand one thing ,Hitlear lost becaus he started the war?

You may strart the war but you can't end it.

Keep your warmongering in your cupboard.:taunt1:
 
Last edited:

bose

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,921
Likes
5,961
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Remember that if India decides to coordinate its land forces with Japanese naval and air pressure, China will offer Pakistan advanced nuclear warheads and launch systems to ensure that India is removed from the table as soon as possible in any conflict. Then the tie-up with Japan would be a net loss for India, as India would have ensured its (limited) nuclear arsenal becomes split in the event of any real conflict.
China had already shared the Nuke design and missile technology to Pakistan, Indians knows it very well, now it is India's turn to return !! live with it... It was Chou Ein Lai who offered Pakistan a joint attack on India in 1963...

Do not worry of limited India's nuclear aesenal, they are enough to bring China to knees...
 

jon88

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
201
Likes
44
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Both of you guys can nuke yourselves to kingdom come. Leaders of both nations are not as stupid as you guys.

Anyway, regarding the article, yes, I agree that China might be concerned about Japan courting India. However, I am a bit skeptical when it comes to South Korea. All my South Korean co-workers are more wary of Japan than China. In fact they hope that China continue to contain Japan, either through it's economic clout or aggressive military posturing. Let's get our facts straight and not get into the either-or fallacy, South Korea is with China and USA and definitely not with Japan. We should not believe that South Korea would like to see a weakened China when they actually prefer a weakened Japan.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Hindu is the mouthpiece of China. Therefore, articles by the Chinese Ambassador WEi Wei is not surprising where he indirectly rants aggressively. The euphemistic title "Year of Friendly Exchanges" is most hilarious and typically Chinese, talking through both ends of the cheek.

Panchsheel is invoked in the article. The same Panchsheel they cast asunder that advocated reciprocal respect in all aspects of Statehood to sneakily steal territory and then wage war! Hypocrisy thy name is China.

And now they are worried that Japan and South Korea is warming up to India, and so the best way is to use 'friends of China\ Indian media to run a vituperate harangue against Japan and its rising militarism! As if India cares!

China has good reasons to worry about Japan, given the humiliation and horror Japan had heaped on China for which China 'celebrates' her campaign of 100 Years of National Shame, but India has no reason to be worried about Japan.

India has no such horror to talk about from Japan.

In fact, India should make capital of Japan's advanced technological prowess to its advantage as also have a partner, which is reliable, as an outpost of surveillance in the East!

This tripartite equation that India is embarking on with definitely be beneficial to Indian industry, defence production and will shore up the defence potential of India vis a vis China and its imperialistic and hegemonic evil eye. It will slow down, if not eliminate China land grabbing lust around Asia. The success of this tripartite equation will draw more Asian country on board and that is what China is running scared about.

Then floundering defence and foreign policy will certainly look up, after so many years of doldrums.

China can conjure comfort that South Korea too has had a rocky history with Japan. But then time does not stand still. Given the threat that China projects in tandem with the mercurial and unpredictable surrogate of China i.e. North Korea, South Korea is finding it more comforting in the warm embrace of the tripartite relations than the hot air that China and its ally projects.

China has a patron like relations with its client Pakistan. China will surely try to balance the situation by arming Pakistan to the hilt. However, it must be realised that arms alone does not permit a Nation to go to war; it also requires an economy that can sustain a war.

Unfortunately for China, Pakistan does not boast of such an economy that can sustain war. But then,China could financially also support Pakistan to become economically stable and then strong. That would be the ideal situation for India, not to mention for many others who are inimical to Pakistan and China, namely the US and the West. It would be music to the ear that Pakistan would thus milk China dry, stopping Chinese growth and militarisation, leading China to become weaker than now!

Three cheers to the success of the Tripartite Agreement!
 

jon88

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
201
Likes
44
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Hindu is the mouthpiece of China. Therefore, articles by the Chinese Ambassador WEi Wei is not surprising where he indirectly rants aggressively. The euphemistic title "Year of Friendly Exchanges" is most hilarious and typically Chinese, talking through both ends of the cheek.

Panchsheel is invoked in the article. The same Panchsheel they cast asunder that advocated reciprocal respect in all aspects of Statehood to sneakily steal territory and then wage war! Hypocrisy thy name is China.

And now they are worried that Japan and South Korea is warming up to India, and so the best way is to use 'friends of China\ Indian media to run a vituperate harangue against Japan and its rising militarism! As if India cares!

China has good reasons to worry about Japan, given the humiliation and horror Japan had heaped on China for which China 'celebrates' her campaign of 100 Years of National Shame, but India has no reason to be worried about Japan.

India has no such horror to talk about from Japan.

In fact, India should make capital of Japan's advanced technological prowess to its advantage as also have a partner, which is reliable, as an outpost of surveillance in the East!

This tripartite equation that India is embarking on with definitely be beneficial to Indian industry, defence production and will shore up the defence potential of India vis a vis China and its imperialistic and hegemonic evil eye. It will slow down, if not eliminate China land grabbing lust around Asia. The success of this tripartite equation will draw more Asian country on board and that is what China is running scared about.

Then floundering defence and foreign policy will certainly look up, after so many years of doldrums.

China can conjure comfort that South Korea too has had a rocky history with Japan. But then time does not stand still. Given the threat that China projects in tandem with the mercurial and unpredictable surrogate of China i.e. North Korea, South Korea is finding it more comforting in the warm embrace of the tripartite relations than the hot air that China and its ally projects.

China has a patron like relations with its client Pakistan. China will surely try to balance the situation by arming Pakistan to the hilt. However, it must be realised that arms alone does not permit a Nation to go to war; it also requires an economy that can sustain a war.

Unfortunately for China, Pakistan does not boast of such an economy that can sustain war. But then,China could financially also support Pakistan to become economically stable and then strong. That would be the ideal situation for India, not to mention for many others who are inimical to Pakistan and China, namely the US and the West. It would be music to the ear that Pakistan would thus milk China dry, stopping Chinese growth and militarisation, leading China to become weaker than now!

Three cheers to the success of the Tripartite Agreement!
Another myth here, North Korea is no surrogate of China. China do not and can not impose it's will on North Korea like the US does with South Korea. China left the Korean peninsular after the war while the US leeches on till now, just like what they still do with any other war. The US sticks around and won't ever leave. You'll be surprised, most South Koreans believe that their peace talks with North Korea almost always fail because of either ridiculous American demands as well as hardline rhetorics from North Korea.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Another myth here, North Korea is no surrogate of China. China do not and can not impose it's will on North Korea like the US does with South Korea. China left the Korean peninsular after the war while the US leeches on till now, just like what they still do with any other war. The US sticks around and won't ever leave. You'll be surprised, most South Koreans believe that their peace talks with North Korea almost always fail because of either ridiculous American demands as well as hardline rhetorics from North Korea.
Not a myth in geopolitics to an extent. Give u an example - who were strongly opposed to German reunification? Its "allies" France and Britain even when Gorbarchev decided to let go of E. Germany !

Thatcher Opposed German Reunification
How World Politics Is Made: France and the Reunification of Germany | Foreign Affairs

Apart from Korean feud with Japan over history and Dokdo Island, below graph tells why S. Korea clings to China despite its confrontation with N.Korea where China plays a mediatorial role.



How will the Japan-India-S.Korea tripartite pact work out? Let's wait and see:pound:
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

Another myth here, North Korea is no surrogate of China. China do not and can not impose it's will on North Korea like the US does with South Korea. China left the Korean peninsular after the war while the US leeches on till now, just like what they still do with any other war. The US sticks around and won't ever leave. You'll be surprised, most South Koreans believe that their peace talks with North Korea almost always fail because of either ridiculous American demands as well as hardline rhetorics from North Korea.
Maybe the article below would be wrong, right?

China is North Korea's most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food, arms, and fuel. The country has helped sustain what is now Kim Jong-un's regime, and has historically opposed harsh international sanctions on North Korea in the hope of avoiding regime collapse and an influx of refugees across their shared eight hundred-mile border. But after Pyongyang's third nuclear test in February 2013, analysts say that China's patience with its ally may be wearing thin. This latest nuclear test, following one in 2006 and another in May 2009, has complicated North Korea's relationship with Beijing, which has played a central role in the Six Party Talks, the multilateral framework aimed at denuclearizing North Korea. The December 2013 public shaming and execution of Jang Song-thaek, Kim Jong-un's uncle and close adviser, triggered renewed concern from Beijing, which had built a solid relationship with Jang

hese newly surfaced tensions have complicated foreign policy decisions within the ranks of Beijing's new leadership, ushered in at the beginning of 2013, as high-level discussions between China and North Korea have stalled since December 2012. CFR's Scott Snyder and See-won Byun of the Asia Foundation say that the incident has "dampened China's hopes for regional engagement that were raised by a series of bilateral consultations in Beijing among U.S., PRC, and DPRK special envoys in February." While Beijing continues to have more leverage over Pyongyang than any other nation, experts say the tests could worsen relations, and many have urged China's new leadership to consider taking a tougher stance with its neighbor.

Strong Allies
China's support for North Korea dates back to the Korean War (1950-1953), when its troops flooded the Korean peninsula to aid its northern ally. Since the war, China has lent political and economic backing to North Korea's leaders: Kim Il-sung (1912-1994), Kim Jong-il (1941-2011), and Kim Jong-un (1983-).

In recent years, China has been one of the authoritarian regime's few allies. But this long-standing relationship became strained when Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006 and China agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 1718, which imposed sanctions on Pyongyang. By signing off on this resolution--as well as earlier UN sanctions that followed the DPRK's July 2006 missile tests--Beijing signaled a shift in tone from diplomacy to punishment. After Pyongyang's second nuclear test in May 2009, China also agreed to stricter sanctions. In February 2013, Beijing summoned the North Korean ambassador to its foreign ministry to protest Pyongyang's third nuclear test, and issued a call for a calm reaction to the denuclearization talks. However, it stopped short of the harsh criticism it unleashed in 2006, when it described the North's first nuclear test as "brazen."

Despite their long alliance, analysts say Beijing does not control Pyongyang. "In general, Americans tend to overestimate the influence China has over North Korea," says Daniel Pinkston, a Northeast Asia expert at the International Crisis Group. In March 2010, China refused to take a stance against North Korea, despite conclusive evidence that showed Pyongyang sank a South Korean naval vessel. But in meetings with then leader Kim Jong-il following the incident, then Chinese president Hu Jintao asked the North Korean leader to refrain from future provocations, says John S. Park, director of the Korea Working Group at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Hu also reportedly insisted on long overdue market reforms, notes Aidan Foster-Carter, a Korea expert at Leeds University.

At the same time, China has too much at stake in North Korea to halt or withdraw its support entirely. "The idea that the Chinese would turn their backs on the North Koreans is clearly wrong," says CFR Senior Fellow Adam Segal. Beijing only agreed to UN Resolution 1718 after revisions removed requirements for tough economic sanctions beyond those targeting luxury goods, and China's trade with North Korea has steadily increased in recent years. Bilateral trade between China and North Korea reached nearly $6 billion in 2011, according to official Chinese data. Park writes that much of China's economic interactions with North Korea are not actually prohibited by the current UN sanctions regime; Beijing characterizes them as economic development and humanitarian activities. China's enforcement of the UN sanctions is also unclear, says a January 2010 report (PDF) from the U.S. Congressional Research Service, which notes that Chinese exports of banned luxury goods averaged around $11 million per month in 2009.

Pyongyang's Gains
Pyongyang is economically dependent on China, which provides most of its food and energy supplies. Nicholas Eberstadt, a consultant at the World Bank, says that since the early 1990s, China has served as North Korea's chief food supplier and has accounted for nearly 90 percent of its energy imports. By some estimates, China provides 80 percent of North Korea's consumer goods and 45 percent of its food. North Korea's economic dependence on China continues to grow, as indicated by the significant trade imbalance between the two countries. Snyder notes that in 2008, Chinese imports amounted to $2.03 billion, while exports to China including coal and iron ore totaled $750 million. Some experts see the $1.25 billion trade deficit as an indirect Chinese subsidy, given that North Korea cannot finance its trade deficit through borrowing.

China also provides aid directly to Pyongyang. "It is widely believed that Chinese food aid is channeled to the military," (PDF) reported the Congressional Research Service in January 2010. That allows the World Food Program's food aid to be targeted at the general population "without risk that the military-first policy or regime stability would be undermined by foreign aid policies of other countries."

China's Priorities
China's support for Pyongyang ensures a friendly nation on its northeastern border, and provides a buffer zone between China and democratic South Korea, which is home to around 29,000 U.S. troops and marines. This allows China to reduce its military deployment in its northeast and "focus more directly on the issue of Taiwanese independence," writes Shen Dingli of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai in China Security (PDF). North Korea's allegiance is important to Beijing as a bulwark against U.S. military dominance of the region as well as against the rise of Japan's military.

China also gains economically from its association with North Korea; growing numbers of Chinese firms are investing in North Korea and gaining concessions like preferable trading terms and port operations. Chinese companies have made major investments aimed at developing mineral resources in North Korea's northern region. According to a January 2010 Congressional Research Service report, these investments are "part of a Chinese strategy (PDF)" of stabilizing the border region it shares with North Korea, lessening the pressure on North Koreans to migrate to China, and raising the general standard of living in North Korea. USIP's Park writes these economic development plans also further China's national interests in developing its own chronically poor northeastern provinces by securing mineral and energy resources across the border.

"For the Chinese, stability and the avoidance of war are the top priorities," says Daniel Sneider, the associate director for research at Stanford's Asia-Pacific Research Center. "From that point of view, the North Koreans are a huge problem for them, because Pyongyang could trigger a war on its own." The specter of hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees flooding into China is a huge worry for Beijing. "The Chinese are most concerned about the collapse of North Korea leading to chaos on the border," CFR's Segal says. If North Korea does provoke a war with the United States, China and South Korea would bear the brunt of any military confrontation on the Korean peninsula. Yet both those countries have been hesitant about pushing Pyongyang too hard, for fear of making Kim Jong-un's regime collapse. The flow of refugees into China is already a problem: China has promised Pyongyang that it will repatriate North Koreans escaping across the border, but invites condemnation from human rights groups when sending them back to the DPRK. Jing-dong Yuan of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in California says Beijing began its construction of a barbed wire fence along this border in 2006 for that reason.

Experts say China has also been ambivalent on the question of its commitment to intervene for the defense of North Korea in case of military conflict. The 1961 Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance says China is obliged to defend North Korea against unprovoked aggression. But Jaewoo Choo, assistant professor of Chinese foreign policy at Kyung Hee University in South Korea, writes in Asian Survey that "China conceives itself to have the right to make an authoritative interpretation of the "principle for intervention" in the treaty. As a result of changes in regional security in a post-Cold War world, he writes, "China now places more value on national interest, over alliances blinded by ideology." But, he argues, Chinese ambiguity deters others from taking military action against Pyongyang.

Beijing's Leverage
Beijing has been successful in bringing North Korean officials to the negotiating table at the Six Party Talks many times. "It's clear that the Chinese have enormous leverage over North Korea in many respects," says Sneider of Stanford's Asia-Pacific Research Center. "But can China actually try to exercise that influence without destabilizing the regime? Probably not." Pinkston says that for all of North Korea's growing economic ties with China, "at the end of the day, China has little influence over the military decisions."

Also, China does not wish to use its leverage except for purposes consistent with its policy objectives and strategic interests, say experts. Choo writes, "After all, it is not about securing influence over North Korean affairs but is about peaceful management of the relationship with the intent to preserve the status quo of the peninsula."

Analysts say that with the removal of Jang Song-thaek, who had been an important liaison to Beijing, China may further tilt toward prioritizing stability over denuclearization in the near term. However, his absence may also deprive China of strategic alternatives to cooperate with the United States and South Korea given the "skyrocketing reputational costs" of continued support for the North Korean leadership, Snyder writes.

Washington's Role
The United States has pushed North Korea to verifiably and irreversibly give up its nuclear weapons program in return for aid, diplomatic benefits, and eventually normal diplomatic relations with Washington. Experts say Washington and Beijing have very different views on the issue. "Washington believes in using pressure to influence North Korea to change its behavior, while Chinese diplomats and scholars have a much more negative view of sanctions and pressure tactics," Pinkston says. "They tend to see public measures as humiliating and counterproductive."

However, China and the United do share common interests, including containing North Korea's nuclear program and preventing South Korea and Japan from going nuclear, say some experts. A regional partnership involving the United States and the countries of Northeast Asia, including China "remains the best vehicle ... for building stable relationships on and around the Korean peninsula," writes CFR Senior Fellow Sheila A. Smith. But this dynamic has been challenged with the Obama administration's "pivot" to Asia--a policy that strengthens U.S. political, economic, and military participation in Asia through bilateral dialogues with China as well as a range of hedging measures designed to manage China's rise. This tension "provides a backdrop to consider prospects for Sino-U.S. cooperation on policies toward North Korea, and highlights Chinese wariness and strategic mistrust of US policy intentions," writes Snyder.

Looking Forward
"Everyone who deals with North Korea recognizes [it] as a very unstable actor," Sneider says. However, some experts say North Korea is acting assertively both in its relationship with China and on the larger world stage. "The North Koreans are developing a much more realist approach to their foreign policy," Pinkston says. "They're saying imbalances of power are dangerous and the United States has too much power--so by increasing their own power they're helping to balance out world stability. It's neorealism straight out of an international relations textbook."

And even though China may be angry with North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship, analysts say it will avoid moves that could cause a sudden collapse of the regime. But Asian military affairs expert Andrew Scobell writes, "No action by China should be ruled out where North Korea is concerned." According to Scobell, Beijing might stop propping up Pyongyang and allow North Korea to fail if it believed a unified Korea under Seoul would be more favorably disposed toward Beijing. A January 2008 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Institute of Peace says China has its own contingency plans (PDF) to dispatch troops to North Korea in case of instability. According to the report, the Chinese army could be sent into North Korea on missions to keep order if unrest triggers broader violence, including attacks on nuclear facilities in the North or South.

The China-North Korea Relationship - Council on Foreign Relations
.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

How will the Japan-India-S.Korea tripartite pact work out? Let's wait and see:pound:


Hope not the way the deep strategic relationship of the US and India is panning out! ;)
 

marshal panda

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
167
Likes
56
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan, South Ko

The no of Chinese incursions were conveniently forgotten !
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,952
Country flag
Re: China signals concerns over India being courted by Japan South Kor

Well, that is why India sucks in its foreign policy.
Bring Japan and south korea into a single alliance against China? Even USA can't make that happen after 60 years effort! Good luck!

What always make me laughing is: Indians think that they can build up an military and political alliance against Chinese by offering nothing but empty words.
exactly i am in favor of giving nukes and missiles to Japan and SK, Plus we can build nuke boomer class submarine for mutual benefit. What do you say?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top