South China Sea: Role of India

[W.G.Ewald]

it is your only hope,right?

No, that is Obi Wan Kenobe.

 

[panduranghari]

You complete misunderstood my post. I suggest you read it again. And read the post I replied to as well.

I presume you are referring to this

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-south-china-sea-role-india-4.html#post494344

China is posturing itself as a bully and no one likes bullies. Even teachers treat them more harshly. The guess unless China stops its expansion plans, there will always be a distrust about Chinese irrespective of what they think. Its the ideology that is a reason why China is considered as untrustworthy.

There could have been a scenario where India could have had its own sphere of influence, China could have had her sphere of influence and then USA would have had the rest. But with Chinas stance there is no chance.

 

[nrj]

No, no outsider worries about your taxpayer's money, but your gov should think like a cool head instead of an internet fanboy.

Its the other way round. You are blabbering on internet while I am paying my Government to adventure in SCS. And there is no internal opposition for what they are working in SCS.

How many americans supported the war in Iraq in 2003 and how many opposed it in 2008?

Ask the yanks, wrong thread.

Oh, yes, I forgot India is the biggiest democratic country. But unfortunately that doesn't guarantee your success in the world.

Still better than communist authoritarian state suppressing individual's right about what they talk, what they write.

 

[RedDragon]

Pissing off Beijing? Maybe. But that is all india can do now.

If USA wants to play a big role in south china sea, 3 carriers group will appear there in next days.

If Japan wants to step in, they can provide billions dollars financial aid to south east asian country.

Even South korea can say something as their investments are all over asia.

What india can provide NOW? Fleet? Money? or just empty words?

I select words.

 

[Energon]

I have no idea what you mean by Chinas increasing belligerence. Chinas stance has been quite clear since the 70s. Just because you havnt noticed the conflict dosnt means it hasnt been there all long. If China wanted, she could have forced the issue a long time ago.

THe only difference is some people are bring the dispute to the international arena now. The stakes are higher now.

No idea what you mean by protecting the vulnerable states. They were never threatened. I have not heard any chinese planes to invade them. Nor any plans to disrupt the traffic in SCS.

The disputes is about access to resources. China has stated that she is willing to negotiate bilateral with others.

Last, the dispute is among several nations. It seems you have already taken a side despite your claim that you are not motivated by biased malice towards China.

What are you talking about? I never claimed this conflict was new. The tensions in the South China sea have precipitously increased off late, heck official warnings of conflict are being issued and travel warnings are flying around back and forth. Yes, the dispute has been ongoing for a while, but the level of escalation is undoubtedly taking a new turn. And yes, there's definitely an increasing level of belligerence from China, probably due to decreasing fish stocks in areas proximal to mainland china, increasing military capabilities, increasing nationalism and of course oil and gas reserves. What is however interesting to note is that the tensions are being fueled by sections of the civilian establishment and not the military. However given the miniscule military resources of a country like the Philippines, standoffs between para naval forces are just as grave. Also, from a diplomatic point of view, talk of the Chinese establishment elevating this conflict to it's list of "core interests", (along with other highly volatile disputes like Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet is very recent.

SE Asian countries are undoubtedly wary of China, and understandably so given the history of clashes with the Vietnamese, the record of heavy handed military action in other disputed regions in the past; and given the inexorable fact that China is a mercantile power.

Yes, China has claimed interest in multilateral negotiations, however these negotiations are based on fundamental territorial claims that appear to be ludicrous because they simply claim everything in the region. The UNCLOS map appears to be far more realistic and since it goes by established geographic metrics the islands get divided between the parties, including part of the Paracels to China.

In terms of vulnerability, if these countries did not feel seriously threatened they would have never asked for American intervention. Nobody said anything about invasion, it's only a matter of naval skirmishes, which are very possible. None of these countries possess a naval force worthy of mention. Only a formidable naval coalition task force will provide a decisive deterrent to the escalation of any conflict.

Your assumption that I have already chosen a side is unfounded. Again, I never mentioned that the dispute was a binomial affair and the historical skirmishes between the Filipinos, Malays and the Vietnamese were beyond the scope of my earlier post. What I am saying is that the current military posturing is binomial in nature with China decisively being on one side.

The foundation of my thesis is that the ASEAN region should remain multipolar, and currently this is not compatible with China's territorial claims.

 

[Energon]

Finanally, we got someone who can think with a clear mind.

Although, I just doubt the prospect of the format you proposed--simply 1. China is the biggiest client of most of the members involved; 2. they have a bigger chance to fight against each other rather than fighting China, such as South Korea and Japan.

It's just that the current situation seems to have forced the division along the lines of China vs the rest, and any minor skirmish will undoubtedly set this divide in stone.

I think the biggest problem right now is internal turbulence within China. The impending political change seems to have resulted in internal factions, which also seems to have affected the foreign policy cadre. Again this is one of the reasons why the hostile posturing and rhetoric is coming from sections of the civilian establishment and not the military itself. The main facilitator of the rhetoric is of course the wide spread nationalism (which is actually counter productive and not the same as patriotism).

Imo in order to bring about a positive outcome all measures must be taken in the short term to avoid any military engagement between China and one of the ASEAN countries. Eventually things within China will settle down, the rhetoric will end and commerce will once again become the primary mode of conduct.

 

[no smoking]

It's just that the current situation seems to have forced the division along the lines of China vs the rest, and any minor skirmish will undoubtedly set this divide in stone.

Sorry, I don't see there is the line of China vs the rest. So far how many countries in south east asia have claim their support to Philipine? or Vietname on this issue? None except themslves!

Of course it doesn't mean a Asian nato cann't be founded in the future. But clearly, there is no south east asian country is interested in this NOW. After all, unlike USSR's economic role in Europe, China is the biggest customer to all of them. The power fo money cannot stop them to conflict with china in certain area, but good enough to prevent a Asian Nato.

I think the biggest problem right now is internal turbulence within China. The impending political change seems to have resulted in internal factions, which also seems to have affected the foreign policy cadre. Again this is one of the reasons why the hostile posturing and rhetoric is coming from sections of the civilian establishment and not the military itself. The main facilitator of the rhetoric is of course the wide spread nationalism (which is actually counter productive and not the same as patriotism).

China's internal problems are still about economic equalty and corruption instead of the political change you are talking about. On contrary, internal problems has almost zero effect on China's foreign policy except one: military money. We have to notice: even in the most dangerous moment for CCP in last 80s and 90s, CCP didn't even tell its citizens much about its victories in the conflct against Vietname & Philipine.

Today's posture is actually the natual result of the growth of power. Any country would ask more when the power balance is turning to favor itself. The only question is: does China asked too much beyond its power? From the response of other asian countries, I would say no.

Imo in order to bring about a positive outcome all measures must be taken in the short term to avoid any military engagement between China and one of the ASEAN countries. Eventually things within China will settle down, the rhetoric will end and commerce will once again become the primary mode of conduct.

Once again, public or people may see this issue by nationalism but gov of any country doesn't. The reason that these countries put their expensive toys in this area and spend sky high amount of money to keep their navies there is: they believe the resouce and geological location of south china sea is important to them strategically. So, if things within China really "settle down" in the future, there is only one thing fore sure: China will put more resource to build its navy. That won't be a good news for anyone who has claim here.

Just look at USA's history, you will clearly see where China is going to.

 

[panduranghari]

Just look at USA's history, you will clearly see where China is going to.

USA got to where it did due to cheap oil, its own currency as a reserve currency and the control over UN. China has none of these things. And there are other countries who wish for same and China is competing with them too. USA rose when everyone else was fighting each other and USA was outside these wars. China is the cause of many skrimishes.

I thought You were smarter than that. Perhaps not.

 

[no smoking]

USA got to where it did due to cheap oil, its own currency as a reserve currency and the control over UN. China has none of these things. And there are other countries who wish for same and China is competing with them too. USA rose when everyone else was fighting each other and USA was outside these wars. China is the cause of many skrimishes.

I mean the history between between 1860s and 1910s: after USA finished its civil war and settelled most of its internal problems, its put its eyes outside its border. With a power rising up, there is always a process of power rebalancing. And this process will always bring conflict and even war. There is no surprise that China is and will be a part of many problems. I also believe that india will be the next cause of power rebalancing.

I thought You were smarter than that. Perhaps not.

Could you please have a discussion like an adult?

 

[ice berg]

USA got to where it did due to cheap oil, its own currency as a reserve currency and the control over UN.

I thought You were smarter than that. Perhaps not.

And how did US arrive at the position where her currency is worlds reserve currency and "control" over UN(what ever that suppose to mean)? The UN security counsel got five permanent member with veto power, five.

If cheap oil is all it takes to become a superpower, then everyone is a superpower.
And this:
"USA rose when everyone else was fighting each other and USA was outside these wars"

I take you have never heard about the wars US has fought since her independency. Tsk tsk.

US took over from the UK after the WW2, not before.

I dont think you are in a position to comment how smart other people are.

 

[panduranghari]

And how did US arrive at the position where her currency is worlds reserve currency and "control" over UN(what ever that suppose to mean)? The UN security counsel got five permanent member with veto power, five.

If cheap oil is all it takes to become a superpower, then everyone is a superpower.
And this:
"USA rose when everyone else was fighting each other and USA was outside these wars"

I take you have never heard about the wars US has fought since her independency. Tsk tsk.

US took over from the UK after the WW2, not before.

I dont think you are in a position to comment how smart other people are.

I knew you were never brought up right. No wonder you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Try again.

 

[roma]

greedy played themselves out ?

according to this map
the maritime territory claimed by dragon doesn't include much oil reserves
other than the purely coastal areas off chinas coast
which is reasonably their territory anyway

most of the other oil rich sea bed lies outside the dragon claim area

An Oil and Gas Boom for Southeast Asia? | The Financialist

 

[desicanuk]

well, you don't realize that due to low average income, India is still just a "potential market" .

from auto,steel,household appliance to electronics, the consumption of almost every items in india is just 1/10-1/5 of that in CHina.

That's because Indians pay cash whereas Chinese spending is mostly borrowed money.A very high proportion of these loans are toxic.Beijing got so worried that borrowing from banks was severely curtailed.Watch out when the bubble bursts and sends the PRC economy into tailspin!!

 

[aerokan]

greedy played themselves out ?

according to this map
the maritime territory claimed by dragon doesn't include much oil reserves
other than the purely coastal areas off chinas coast
which is reasonably their territory anyway

most of the other oil rich sea bed lies outside the dragon claim area

An Oil and Gas Boom for Southeast Asia? | The Financialist

What does N/A in the link means for the region in deep red? Oil not available or info not available?

 

[no smoking]

That's because Indians pay cash whereas Chinese spending is mostly borrowed money.A very high proportion of these loans are toxic.Beijing got so worried that borrowing from banks was severely curtailed.Watch out when the bubble bursts and sends the PRC economy into tailspin!!

Oh, please tell me how does that double deficit of india come from.

 

[desicanuk]

Oh, please tell me how does that double deficit of india come from.

Ask badguy2000!!He is the expert!!

 

[Ray]

Sorry, I don't see there is the line of China vs the rest. So far how many countries in south east asia have claim their support to Philipine? or Vietname on this issue? None except themslves!

Silent Waters, Run Deep!

三思而后行

Of course it doesn't mean a Asian nato cann't be founded in the future. But clearly, there is no south east asian country is interested in this NOW. After all, unlike USSR's economic role in Europe, China is the biggest customer to all of them. The power fo money cannot stop them to conflict with china in certain area, but good enough to prevent a Asian Nato.

Money to a Chinese is a be all and end all of existence.

It is not so for religious minded people.

Where is the requirement of an Asian military pact against China?

In fact, all dislike military pacts and militarism as displayed by China.

But China must realise 水能载舟，亦能覆舟. (Not only can water float a boat, it can sink it also).

China's internal problems are still about economic equalty and corruption instead of the political change you are talking about. On contrary, internal problems has almost zero effect on China's foreign policy except one: military money. We have to notice: even in the most dangerous moment for CCP in last 80s and 90s, CCP didn't even tell its citizens much about its victories in the conflct against Vietname & Philipine.

Aggressive intent and proactive foreign policy is basically the result of quelling internal disharmony and disarray, by posing a foreign threat so as to unite people!

Today's posture is actually the natual result of the growth of power. Any country would ask more when the power balance is turning to favor itself. The only question is: does China asked too much beyond its power? From the response of other asian countries, I would say no.

Power of growth with great internal social disarray and anger at the rich poor divide and that lack of progress in the western and rural areas compared to the eastern side of China.

Once again, public or people may see this issue by nationalism but gov of any country doesn't. The reason that these countries put their expensive toys in this area and spend sky high amount of money to keep their navies there is: they believe the resouce and geological location of south china sea is important to them strategically. So, if things within China really "settle down" in the future, there is only one thing fore sure: China will put more resource to build its navy. That won't be a good news for anyone who has claim here.

Build as much as you wish because the boom always precedes a bust.

Just look at USA's history, you will clearly see where China is going to.

Isn't that being too presumptuous for a Johnny Come Lately.

 

[no smoking]

Ask badguy2000!!He is the expert!!

You are indians, he is not!
You claim that India pay the cash, not him!
Now, India economy is in crisis, not China!

So, please enlighen us where your confidence comes from?

 

[Ray]

China's economy is not in a crisis?

Read the thread on XI's economic summit and the one on One Child Policy effect on economics and its effect on China.

 

[debasree]

well, you don't realize that due to low average income, India is still just a "potential market" .

from auto,steel,household appliance to electronics, the consumption of almost every items in india is just 1/10-1/5 of that in CHina.

yess u built all the junk good no denial all cheap & crap goods of world make it copyland..:0