The Rise of China : Strategic Implications.

Discussion in 'China' started by pyromaniac, Mar 1, 2009.

?

What does china fear most militarily and socially as a threat to its security and stability?

  1. Japan turning assertive

    7.4%
  2. An indian global power

    30.7%
  3. The United States in its backyard.

    58.0%
  4. the russian military machine ramping up

    3.9%
  1. pyromaniac

    pyromaniac Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    *This article uses info from late 2007......a little outdated*


    There has been quite some curiosity around the world on the chances of China standing against USA in the advent of a war. As with any kind of war, a war between nuclear powers and military mights like USA and China could quickly escalate to a nuclear holocaust, this time without a total victory or surrender like Japan. Though such a war is highly unlikely due to the risks involved, it would be interesting to do an analytical comparison of the destruction that could occur in case of a nuclear war between China and the United States so that people don’t consider supporting such undesirable ideas.



    *China DF5

    The Dong Feng 5A ICBM which has a range of 13000+ km and can carry up to 3 H-bomb warheads capable of killing 7.5 million people in NYC in less than 10 seconds.*

    China has a very strong nuclear deterrance against USA although not as much as erstwhile Soviet Union (USSR) or the current Russia. China’s successful transformation to a nuclear power occurred at 15:00 hours on October 16, 1964. It was a major landmark and an achievement of the Chinese people in their struggle to defend their nation and oppose the US imperialist policy of blackmailing countries with the threats of nuclear attack. Before the test and building up of a nuclear force, the Chinese government vehemently opposed nuclear armament which fell into deaf ear of imperial countries like UK and USA. The continued threats and reluctance of Britain and America to accommodate the legitimate interests of peaceful nations led Mao Zedong to make China a military and nuclear might with sufficient second strike capability to hit back if attacked by a despot or imperialist nation.


    The United States has by far the largest military budget in the world. It spends more per year than the defense budgets of the next 15 countries combined. It is also the only country which killed the largest number of people in wars and conflicts after the World War 2. Considering this facts, it would be naive to assume US won’t hit a country’s population with a nuclear bomb if its gain looks bigger than its possible loss. It would be a risk if Mao Zendong were not to take an important step to secure the future of at least one billion people in the world who live in China Whatever could be the cause for a US nuclear strike on China, it would have resulted in the deaths and destruction of millions of innocent people even by conservative minimum standards. At the present scenario, a US attack solely on China’s ICBM silos would cause deaths of 1.5 million to 20 million civilians depending on the type and number of warheads used. China could then use submarine launched SLBMs and remaining SILO launched ICBMs (with multi-megaton warheads) to hit back on US cities as a second strike policy. This would result in elimination of 25 million to 100 million people in the most populous 75 US cities in the first wave of China’s strikeback (Second strike scenario).



    If we take more realistic standards, a nuclear war between China and USA would result in much higher casualties for both sides. One would most likely obliterate the other or worse, both countries would be destroyed before a truce or victory call could be reached. It is most likely US would suffer most because majority of its 300 million population lives in the major cities which are in China’s missile targets (as a deterrance to US). China would suffer similar casualty in terms of numbers, however in terms of percentage of population it would hurt less than US. In short neither country wants a war with the other, the casualties and destruction being the strongest deterrents. The capability of China defend itself and strike back hard in case of an attack built a strong incentive for USA to try a hand diplomatic solutions to problem rather than foreign policy based in economic and military warfare, blackmails, threats and destabilising governments.



    http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/united-states-vs-china-consequences-of-a-nuclear-war
     
    ARUN R likes this.
  2.  
  3. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    one Ohio class sub can wipeout all the coastal cities in china since all their cities are on the eastern seaboard it would be the end of their economy.
     
  4. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    90% in online poll believe India threatens China's security

    THis is coming from CCP mouth piece. I wonder how true is this??.

     
  5. NikSha

    NikSha Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DELHI
    Pretty much explains why we need to increase the speed of development in that region and improve border security with anything near China and Pakistan even more. Also, are they really whining about regional tension while like backstabbers they are busy trying to screw India's policies in UN to NSG and god knows where else?

    Maybe they can stop replicating Indian designs and exporting fake MADE IN INDIA labelled drugs, we can then talk of "peace" and "relations", words which are missing from their dictionary.
     
  6. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    Global time is just the official throat of CCP . don't take it too seriously.
     
  7. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,408
    Likes Received:
    968
    Tell that to the "official CCP mouthpiece"- the same mouthpiece, incidentally, that varnishes tripe for it's populace's consumption- controls all other sources of information it deems 'unseemly' - to the unique exclusion of this tripe; and the same tripe, ironically, that forms the premise for your rueful predilections.
     
  8. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    wise people should read news resource from both sides : CCP's and West's.

    if you always just read one of both, then you would be brainwashed and get missed
     
  9. NikSha

    NikSha Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DELHI

    :sAni_babymonkey2:
     
  10. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,408
    Likes Received:
    968
    That coming from you is like the pot calling the kettle black.
     
  11. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    I : can read both chinese and english , can compare CCP's report with CNN's report.

    you: can only read english and have never read CCP's report in chinese. have never a comparation between two sides.


    however ,you still feel you are wiser and have more broad horizon! what a joke!~
     
  12. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,408
    Likes Received:
    968
    I can read, write and speak English, German, French, Hindi, Mahrrathi, rudimentary Spanish, Latin and Dutch.

    I could care less about reading your "CCP reports". Simply because you know, as well as I do, that they are nothing less than a tool for dauntless propaganda and selective information by your state. And I can assure you that I do not rely on "CNN" or 'Faux News' for my information. You however seem to discount statements that issue from the very mouthpiece of your 'CCP'.

    I can rattle off more news websites and multi-language dailies than you could compile in a fortnight.

    Notwithstanding, "CCP reports" are translatable into several other languages- including all of the five I have some fluency with.

    Evidently you can "read English", but so picayune are your English skills that you cannot even recognize an idiom for what it is, or for that matter understand the sentiment behind my post.

    You allege that you can "compare both CCP's report with CNN report", and therefore have "more broad horizon". yet not two seconds ago you derogated an article coming from the "official mouthpiece of the CCP" because you disagreed with the title, and therefore the essence, of the article. That is an antistrophe of epic proportions- not to mention being downright stupidity.
     
  13. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,537

    so you are in the 10% minority.
     
  14. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    Well, the title is verbatim from the original article on Global Times, which is a mouthpiece of CCP which incidentally also controls minds of Chinese people. So, it must be correct, both the title and the opinion.
     
  15. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,273
    Likes Received:
    11,279
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The whole story itself is a joke. China talking about a "POLL"?
    This is nothing but rhetoric. Who knows the authenticity of the report and the "poll"?
     
    Sameet Pattnaik likes this.
  16. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    Yusuf, whatever polls conducted by CCP mouth piece must be reflecting the opinions of their populace and must be authentic :)D) as far as Chinese people are concerned. That is what matters to them (CCP).
     
  17. Koji

    Koji New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    1
    China dominates NSA-backed coding contest

    China dominates NSA-backed coding contest

    Chinese student, 18, wins, prompting call for earlier math and science education in U.S.
    By Patrick Thibodeau
    June 8, 2009 04:24 PM ET




    Computerworld - Programmers from China and Russia have dominated an international competition on everything from writing algorithms to designing components.
    Bin Jin
    Winner: Bin Jin, or 'crazyb0y.'

    Whether the outcome of this competition is another sign that math and science education in the U.S. needs improvement may spur debate. But the fact remains: Of 70 finalists, 20 were from China, 10 from Russia and two from the U.S.

    TopCoder Inc., which runs software competitions as part of its software development service, operates TopCoder Open, an annual contest.

    About 4,200 people participated in the U.S. National Security Agency-supported challenge. The NSA has been sponsoring the program for a number of years because of its interest in hiring people with advanced skills.

    Participants in the contest, which was open to anyone -- from student to professional -- and finished with 120 competitors from around the world, went through a process of elimination that finished this month in Las Vegas.

    China's showing in the finals was also helped by the sheer volume of its numbers, 894. India followed at 705, but none of its programmers were finalists. Russia had 380 participants; the United States, 234; Poland, 214; Egypt, 145; and Ukraine, 128, among others.

    Of the total number of contestants, 93% were male, and 84% were aged between 18 and 24.

    Rob Hughes, president and COO of TopCoder, said the strong finish by programmers from China, Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere is indicative of the importance those countries put on mathematics and science education.

    "We do the same thing with athletics here that they do with mathematics and science there," Hughes said. He said the U.S. needs to make earlier inroads in middle schools and high school math and science education.

    That's a point Hughes is hardly alone on. President Barack Obama, as well as many of the major tech leaders including Bill Gates, have called for similar action.

    Of the participants in the contest, more than 57% had bachelor's degrees, most in computer science, and of that 20% had earned a masters degree, and 6% a PhD.

    But the winner of the algorithm competition was an 18-year-old student from China, Bin Jin, who went by the handle "crazyb0y". Chinese programmers have a history of doing very well in this contest.

    Mike Lydon, TopCoder's CTO, said Jin's future in computer science is assured. "This gentleman can do whatever he wants," he said.

    The participants are tested in design, development, architecture, among others, but one of the most popular is the algorithm coding contest.

    To give some sense of difficulty, Lydon provided a description of a problem that the contestants were asked to solve:

    "With the rise of services such as Facebook and MySpace, the analysis and understanding of such networks is a particularly active area of current computer science research. At an abstract level, these networks consist of nodes (people), connected by links (friendship).

    "In this problem, competitors were given the description of two such networks, but with the names of all the nodes removed from each. The networks were each scrambled up before given to the competitors. The task was to determine if the two networks could possibly be from the same group of people.

    "The competitors were to unscramble and label the two networks so that if Alice was connected to Bob in one of the two networks, then Alice was also connected to Bob in the other network. This problem is known as the network isomorphism problem, and solving it for large networks is a major unsolved problem in the realm of theoretical computer science."

    Lydon said the overall problem is unsolved for larger networks, and what's considered a correct answer for this problem would not be considered large enough for the solution in this case to be groundbreaking.

    Two people solved the problem.
     
  18. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    China-US naval incident part of a rising trend

    The Associated Press: China-US naval incident part of a rising trend

    China-US naval incident part of a rising trend

    By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN – 21 hours ago

    BEIJING (AP) — China has called the latest collision between Chinese and U.S. naval vessels an accident, but many of the elements echo previous altercations that have raised concerns that China's navy is growing increasingly aggressive in its patrols of the waters off its coast.

    In last week's incident, as before, a Chinese submarine was found to be shadowing a U.S. Navy ship — possibly undetected by sonar equipment being towed behind the American destroyer.

    The South China Sea, where the collision occurred and where the U.S. Navy operates amid a complex patchwork of competing territorial claims, is also a familiar backdrop for such incidents.

    Even the damaged sonar array that was hit by the Chinese submarine has featured in past confrontations.

    While not every incident gets reported, analysts say evidence suggests they're happening more frequently as Beijing flexes its improved naval capabilities and asserts its objections to U.S. Naval activity in disputed waters.

    "We're seeing an upswing in incidents that reflects an increasingly aggressive Chinese capability, especially in what it considers to be its own territorial waters," said Alex Neil, head of the Asia Program at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

    Chinese state-run newspapers on Monday labeled last week's collision as an accident, with the official China Daily citing Chinese military experts as saying that it probably occurred due to a misjudgment of distance.

    No injuries were reported either aboard the sub or on the destroyer USS John S. McCain, and the extent of the damage to the towed radar was unknown.

    Yin Zhuo, a senior researcher with the People's Liberation Army's Navy Equipment Research Center, said the American destroyer appeared to have failed to detect the submarine, while the Chinese vessel set its distance from the McCain assuming it was not towing sonar arrays, according to the paper.

    The sophisticated and expensive arrays are used to remotely detect the presence of submarines, mines and other underwater objects. They are connected to ships and submarines by cables up to a few miles (kilometers) long.

    Although the incident occurred in international waters reportedly northwest of Subic Bay in the Philippines, China vigorously opposes all U.S. Naval activity and intelligence gathering in the region.

    Eyewitnesses to a March confrontation in the South China Sea say sailors aboard Chinese ships wielded a boat hook in an apparent attempt to snag a U.S. surveillance ship's sonar array tow line.

    China regards the entire South China Sea and island groups within it as its own and interprets international law as giving it the right to police foreign naval activity there.

    The U.S. doesn't take a position on sovereignty claims to the sea but insists on the Navy's right to transit the area and collect surveillance data.

    Neither military would say much about last week's incident.

    China's Defense Ministry did not respond to questions sent by fax Monday, while calls to its offices rang unanswered. The U.S. Pacific Fleet added nothing to its brief statement Sunday that merely confirmed that the sonar had been damaged last Wednesday.

    The Chinese reports did not discuss the direct cause of the collision or the nature of the Chinese sub's mission.

    Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, a frequent commentator on military matters, appeared to blame the U.S., reiterating standard rhetoric that its actions pose a threat to Beijing.

    "The best way to avoid such collisions is for the Pentagon to stop its unfriendly mores toward China in this region," Luo was quoted as saying in China Daily.

    Pentagon officials have said there were four incidents earlier this year where Chinese-flagged fishing vessels maneuvered close to unarmed U.S. ships crewed by civilians and used by the Pentagon to do underwater surveillance and submarine hunting missions.

    And about three years ago, a Chinese submarine surfaced just five miles (eight kilometers) away from the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk and its escorts during exercises off Okinawa. It still isn't clear whether the sub, which was within torpedo firing range of the carrier, had been detected.

    Such incidents are expected to grow as the 225,000-sailor People's Liberation Army Navy boosts both the size and quality of its submarine fleet. China already operates more subs than any other Asian nation, with up to 10 nuclear-powered vessels and as many as 60 diesel-electric subs, while a major new submarine base is reportedly under construction on the island province of Hainan in the South China Sea.

    China has so far largely rebuffed U.S. calls for greater transparency and operational communication to avoid such incidents. China's military has only recently begun to drop its veil of secrecy and limits most military exchanges with other nations to arms sales and ceremonial visits.

    Neil, of the Royal Institute, said that without greater efforts between the navies to reach an agreement on how to avoid misunderstandings and improve communication, the sides risk the possibility of a far more serious collision or clash resulting in the loss of life or vessels.

    "We're going to see more of the same and the potential for a serious incident will rise. There needs to be a discussion about standing operating procedure," he said.
     
  19. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    Confront China's duplicity

    Confront China's duplicity

    James Lyons


    After studying China's behavior over the past two decades, I find it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has developed an extremely devious strategy to challenge U.S. strategic interest not only in the Western Pacific, but also globally.

    To enhance Chinese power and influences, it has built networks with countries such as North Korea, Burma, Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen - to mention but a few - all of which are hostile to the United States and other democracies.

    Further, China has been using proxies to further its political agenda as far back as the Korean and Vietnam wars to tie down and bleed America dry. It is essential for U.S. and allied leadership to balance the goals of a cooperative and peaceful relationship with China with unabridged recognition and realism on China's actions.

    The current economic crisis, coupled with two ongoing wars, makes such an assessment all the more urgent.

    The recent North Korean ballistic missile launched under the guise of a test to put a communications satellite in orbit is a case in point. All the warnings not to test-fire the ballistic missile were ignored by North Korea and China. For that matter, China provided cover for the launch, and on May 25, North Korea conducted its second nuclear-weapon test and coupled it with ballistic missile firing. This means it is one step closer to being nuclear-armed.

    This latest action should confirm for all that the six-party talks are nothing but a sham. The apparent erratic behavior of North Korea does not happen in isolation from Beijing. As former People's Liberation Army top commander Gen. Liu Huaqing once told me, nothing goes on in Pyongyang that the Chinese are not "aware of."

    The most critical military threat China poses to the United States and its allies is its policy embracing proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technology to North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. While China received credit for fostering the six-party talks, let's not forget it was China's role that helped North Korea reach the stage of a nuclear-missile state.

    China also has given extensive nuclear-weapon and missile technology to Pakistan, and it continues to provide critical nuclear and missile technology to Iran. According to former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, there is reason to believe top members of China's political and military leadership benefit personally from nuclear and missile sales.

    If Iran achieves a nuclear-weapon capability and continues with its modus operandi to use proxies to further its objectives, there is a strong possibility that it could provide Hezbollah and other radical terrorist groups with these weapons for use against the United States, Israel and our other allies. We cannot allow that to happen.

    For its part, China has not appeared willing to take any responsibility for its past nuclear and missile proliferation or the dangers created by secondary proliferation to radical terrorist groups. Since the 1990s, China has used its power in the United Nations (as has Russia) to shield Pyongyang and Tehran from any serious punitive sanctions seeking to end their quest for nuclear weapons. Also, China and Russia continue to expand their business and military ties to these countries.

    Complicating matters is the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons remains a paramount concern.

    The Taliban cannot exist without outside support. China has been a reliable source of weapons and ammunition to Iran, which are then passed to Shi'ite militias and the Taliban. Surface-to-air missiles (many of Chinese origin), Chinese-made large-caliber sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) as well as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been convoyed from Iran to the Taliban.

    In his new book, "China's Military Modernization," Rick Fisher says it has been reported that Iran has requested that the Chinese remove all markings from these weapons to conceal their origin. China's association with the Taliban is not new. It was reported just before Sept. 11, 2001, that China was ready to establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban. The relationship in some form continues today.

    With China's growing economic, monetary and military power, it is critically important for U.S. leadership to stop the charade and judge China's actions for what they are: attempts to complicate and weaken U.S. influence where possible.

    The most critical objective for U.S. strategic diplomacy must be to tell China to reverse its nuclear and missile proliferation or suffer direct consequences for its role in future nuclear terror attacks. Washington also should:

    c Recast the six-party talks. Withdraw from the six-party talks until China presents a timetable for how it will seek a verifiable denuclearization of North Korea.

    c Confront China's proxy war. China's material support to the Taliban and Shi'ite militias through the use of proxies - e.g., Iran - must be exposed publicly. The U.S. also must state that it will never trade its support for democratic allies and friends such as Taiwan for Chinese concessions in its military support of proxies.

    c Support Israel against Iran. With Iran continuing to ignore U.N. sanctions, China and Russia blocking more stringent sanctions and Iran's nuclear-missile capability growing nigh, the United States should join with Israel to end this threat. A coordinated military campaign is needed not just to end this threat but also to remove a major Chinese proxy capability that threatens to usher in an age of nuclear terror. This could be the price for a two-stage solution to the Palestinian problem.

    James Lyons, a retired Navy admiral, is a former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations and deputy chief of naval operations, a position in which he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.
     
  20. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    Most of the things that applies to US, also applies to India with respect to China. Therefore, there is urgent need for US and India join hands and tilt the balance against China before it creates monsters out of rogue countries like Pakistan, North Korea etc and disrupting the world peace.
     
  21. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    China Tests the Waters

    China Tests the Waters


    HONG KONG — China is testing its influence in every direction, trying to balance its need to be seen as a fair global player with its nationalist instincts, to balance a genuine internationalism against the paranoia that comes naturally to a closed political system.

    This week the locus has been the Ural city of Yekaterinburg, host to the first official meeting of the BRIC — the catchy acronym invented by Goldman Sachs to make a group from the four largest emerging markets, China, India, Brazil and Russia. If the meeting showed anything it was that their strategic economic interests are very different, though tactical alliances do occur.

    The one thing they appeared to agreed on was that however much they would like to reduce the role of the dollar in the international financial system, doing so was another matter. So much for the BRIC as a coherent group rather than a stock salesman’s slogan. China will continue to play along if the others want but is under few illusions about BRIC.

    Next, also in Yekaterinburg, was the annual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that brings together China, Russia and the Central Asian republics, with India, Pakistan and Iran as observers. Founded as a counter both to U.S. influence in the region and to radical Islam, it is publicly seen as a example of Sino-Russian cooperation.

    In practice, however, its relevance may be declining. The United States is being less pushy in Central Asia; Sino-Russian rivalry for influence in that region is clearer than ever; and there is more worry than anger over the U.S. predicament in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And all are wary of an Iran combining theocratic nationalism with domestic power plays.

    More significant than these talk-fests for China and the U.S. are the minor confrontations that have been occurring in the South China Sea. In March, the U.S. complained of the harassment of an unarmed naval vessel that was in international waters, but within China’s exclusive economic zone. The U.S. claimed right of “innocent passage”; the Chinese alleged that the vessel was interfering with its economic rights.

    In another encounter last week, a Chinese submarine hit a sonar device being towed by a U.S. naval vessel near the Subic Bay naval base but outside Philippine territorial waters, where it was taking part in joint exercises. The United States has chosen to play down the incident as an “inadvertent encounter,” but it again gave notice of China’s long-term goal of making the South China Sea a Chinese lake.

    The incident drew mixed responses in the Philippines, which sum up the dilemma among China’s small neighbors of how to respond to its power and its ability to enforce its territorial claims. Some Philippine voices called for strengthening of their own defenses and their alliances with the U.S. and Japan. Others suggested that its Visiting Forces Arrangement, under which the exercises were taking place, was an unnecessary provocation to China.

    On the economic front, China has had to face the harsh realities of the limits of its buying power and cash in the international marketplace, as exemplified by the failure of the bid by state-owned Chinalco to acquire a major stake in mining giant Rio Tinto.

    Instead of getting influence in the world’s No. 3 iron ore producer, China, as chief customer, now finds itself facing two groups dominating global iron ore trade — a new alliance between Rio Tinto and fellow Anglo-Australian miner BHP-Billiton, and Brazil’s Vale do Rio Doce. The Brazilians are unlikely to get into a price war with the Australians for the sake of their BRIC partner.

    Although Chinese Internet chat rooms were abuzz with nationalist resentment at Chinalco’s rebuff, official Beijing took the news calmly, acknowledging that its enterprises were often poorly equipped for big international forays. However it is threatening a challenge to the Rio-BHP alliance on monopoly grounds. China would deserve sympathy on that score but for its own preference that state-owned oligopolies control the commanding heights of the economy.

    China is finding that domestic and international policy on competition and ownership issues can no longer be separated.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17iht-edbowring.html?scp=44&sq=india&st=nyt
     

Share This Page