Discussion in 'China' started by pyromaniac, Mar 1, 2009.
Tibet issue is dead. The focus is only on border.
if china let go Pakistan then we can let go south china sea area . both india china join hands and fight US or china stick to Pakistan and fight US,india,SE nations. we basically dont have any direct problem with china as of now.
Aksai Chin has been illegally occupied by China from India during 1962 war.
Nobody thinks that India has meaningful influence in South China Sea. India doesn't have anything to offer those south eastern Asians. Your navy power in South China Sea is as much as Chinese navy in Indian Ocean: ZERO. You don't have intention and capability to provide billions of dollars military and economical aids. So, China doesn't need India to let go south china sea.
US has been sticking to Pakistan even before Chinese stepped in, you know why? Because Americans always see India as the potential enemy who is trying to dominate Indian Ocean. So, India won't be US's ally as Chinese is still stuck in the struggle with US in East Asia. GOI knows it, American knows it and Chinese knows it.
stop recognizing that red menace as a country for fucks sake just stop whenever possible their destroying chinese and tibetan culture, polluting the worlds atmosphere (more than everyone else), and trying to annex our territory.
It doesn't matter how many allies USA has because neither Chinese, nor American is looking for war.
China has been fucking with India for centuries, they are a han turkic race they are your blood enemies that's why you can't get along.
Their basic civilizational model is: kill daughters, unleash males on rest of world.
Look at Tarim Basin (UttarPatha), look at Iranian Plateau (C Asia). How many did khan kill?
shameless. Utterly shameless. Uyghurs didn't even do anything to them yet they abuse them. It's the first time I've felt sorry for a muslim being beaten up by a gentile. We can use this against the CCP.
Your above statements are contradictory.
USA-China conflict is developing and likely to develop further due to economic reasons, rather than military. Americans know they are losing to Asia, and they do not like it. Americans may not like India much as well, but India is very far from challenging West in any meaningful way.
I agree with almost all your points, but can you enlighten me on exactly who our real 'allies' are? Genuine question.
China is destined to lead, but not ready
13 September 2016
Author: Liang Xiaojun, China Foreign Affairs University
For a great power to lead the world there are a few qualities that it should bring to the table. These include, but are not limited to, material strength, an aspiration for recognition, and sufficient international support. Does China currently possess these qualities?
Material strength is the idea that a great power can survive a natural disaster or a man-made catastrophe by virtue of its geographical advantage or large population. Russia, for instance, was able to hold back Napoleon’s ambitions and, later on, undermine Hitler’s aggression. The United States also had enough material strength to play a dominant role in rebuilding the world after the devastation of World War II. And, more recently, China’s material strength led it to dominate the regional response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis.
Leaders of great powers often feel obliged to take on more responsibility in governing the world. This sense of responsibility is rooted in national identity. But looking for this international recognition can lead to both the overestimation and underestimation of national power. Japan’s quest for dominance in Asia is a pertinent example of the former. And the latter can be seen in present day China, which is already a major power in the world but still unprepared to play its role.
Finally, great powers are expected by the rest of the world to provide leadership and help maintain international order as only great powers can be relied upon to do so.
China’s continuous economic growth over the past three decades has led to rising international expectations that it will take on a leadership role. New concepts such as a ‘G2’ of China and the United States, and the emergence of China as a ‘responsible stake holder’ in the international order illustrate this trend. The rest of the world, and particularly the United States, has an important role to play in encouraging China to accomplish its mission in a constructive way.
But they must wait patiently as China is not ready to become a great power just yet. There are four reasons for this.
First, there is no domestic consensus within China. Chinese leaders and the Chinese people are deeply divided over a wide range of domestic issues, from the government’s role in economic and social life, to foreign policy issues such as the the South China Sea territorial disputes. New ‘leftist’ arguments (promulgated by scholars such as Wang Wen, Su Changhe, Wang Yiwei) currently hold favour in China, and tough nationalist arguments are on the rise. The rift between the left and the right in China is deepening. How can a divided China lead the world?
Second, China refuses to accept key values of the liberal international order such as democracy, liberty and the rule of law. In recent years, lecturers within China have been given repeated orders that they cannot discuss these values in the classroom. This raises more questions regarding China’s leadership potential.
While rejecting popular liberal values, China also fails to provide any appealing alternatives. Communism has lost its attraction domestically and abroad, and the core values of Confucianism — which emphasise social hierarchies — appear unacceptable in light of the contemporary importance given to equality. China will be considered a leader once it either accepts the dominant liberal values or else establishes some viable alternative that is internationally acceptable.
Third, China does not provide sufficient public goods for the international community. The United States rose to global hegemon status by facilitating a diverse range of public goods under the umbrella of the Bretton Woods system. Thus far, China has initiated the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and is now leading development of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, but these are only regional initiatives.
The provision of public goods is a function of both the material resources of a nation and its human resources. China is severely constrained in its ability to provide public goods due to the gap between skyrocketing demand for international talent and China’s actual domestic supply. For instance, until November 2011, there were only 519 Chinese young volunteers working in 19 countries, compared to the more than 220,000 American Peace Corps volunteers who have served in 140 countries since 1961.
China also lacks a ‘great power mentality’ that can inspire the world. The citizens of a great power should care about the wellbeing and prosperity of people both domestically and abroad. Great powers are expected to be happy to give more and take less, rather than operate on a strict cost–benefit basis.
But China is not ready to give more. China offers foreign aid bilaterally based upon mutual benefit rather than seeking to foster multilateralism. Foreign aid policy, more often than not, attracts fierce opposition in China. And, to make matters worse, nationalism is on the rise within the netizen community, a trend that will likely result in China’s isolation from the world rather than any deeper integration.
So, while it might be time for China to take on the burden of global responsibility on a partnership basis, China is still not ready to become the great power.
Liang Xiaojun is an Associate Professor in the Department of Diplomacy at China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing.
Chinese bullshit, justifying their expansionist designs.
On his 22nd birthday, Corporal Li Lei sent a WeChat update from a United Nations compound in South Sudan. A firefight between government forces and rebels had erupted in the capital, Juba, and threatened to engulf the camp where his Chinese peacekeeping force was standing guard.
His birthday wish, sent on the messaging app on July 8 with a picture of a blue U.N. helmet and helicopters overhead: “That all my comrades remain safe.”
It was the last his friends and family back home heard from him. Two days later, a rocket-propelled grenade hit Cpl. Li’s armored vehicle, witnesses and the Chinese military said. He died two hours later. A colleague, Sgt. Yang Shupeng, died the next day.
In China, authorities staged elaborate ceremonies to honor the fallen soldiers. Photo: Liu Kun/Xinhua/ZUMA Press
Their deaths, weeks after a Chinese military engineer was killed in Mali, have triggered soul-searching in China, which for the first time is confronting the hard realities of President Xi Jinping ’s quest to make his nation a major world power.
Young soldiers often come home in coffins, a heartbreaking reality for any nation that sends its military on missions abroad. It’s a familiar one to families in America and many other countries—and a new thing to many Chinese. The deaths represented China’s first combat troops killed in action since border clashes following its last war, with Vietnam in 1979, after which it espoused nonintervention in affairs abroad.
“The effect within China is not something we’ve seen before,” said Wang Hongyi, a former Chinese diplomat and peacekeeper at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The Juba casualties “had major repercussions—in government, in the military and in society.”
When state television broadcast images of Chinese infantry under fire in Juba, struggling to save bleeding comrades, many viewers at home were stunned. Few in China understood the risks, including Cpl. Li’s family in Fuxing, a placid kiwi-farming village near the Tibetan plateau.
His mother, Yang Bin, asked before he deployed if the work would be dangerous. “China is so powerful, who can bully us Chinese people?” her son replied, she recalled as she sat on a threadbare sofa in her rundown concrete home. “So our minds were set at ease.”
The pain was amplified by Cpl. Li’s youth and devotion to family. Born under China’s one-child-per-family policy, he grew up without siblings and, at 13, lost his father to cancer. He enlisted four years later to help support his mother.
Photos of Cpl. Li Lei in a photo album. Photo: Jeremy Page/The Wall Street Journal
And there was a terrible irony: According to several U.N. officials, Cpl. Li may have been killed by a Chinese-made weapon, the likes of which China has sold to developing countries including South Sudan for years under its export-driven economic policy.
Chinese authorities moved quickly to shape public response, staging elaborate ceremonies to honor the fallen while flooding media with commentaries portraying their deaths as the cost of China’s new great-power status. “In protecting world peace, Chinese soldiers are moving to the forefront, and will increasingly face the test of blood and war,” proclaimed one commentary. “This reflects China’s responsibilities as a major power.”
There have been no public protests, and most Chinese still fiercely support the military. The government monitors public discussion of policy, especially security issues, and critics are often censored or punished.
Still, on social media, in policy-making circles and in private conversations, Beijing is encountering the kind of doubts that have bedeviled other nations during military operations overseas.
“It’s not worth China suffering more injuries and deaths!” wrote a user of Weibo, one of many on the microblogging platform calling for China to withdraw from South Sudan. Retired Col. Yue Gang wrote on Weibo that Chinese troops should have hit back: “We can’t passively take a beating.” He didn’t respond to inquiries.
Inside China’s government, differences have emerged about how to use the military overseas, said people familiar with the discussions. The prevailing view in the foreign ministry, they said, is that China should rapidly expand peacekeeping activities to show global leadership, as Mr. Xi demands.
Many military commanders, they said, by contrast want to move more slowly, conscious of their troops’ lack of experience and sensitive to domestic and international criticism.
China’s foreign ministry declined to comment. A senior defense official denied there were differences within the government.
The tragedy speaks to a pillar of Mr. Xi’s political agenda. Last year, he pledged to build an 8,000-strong standby peacekeeping force, adding to 2,600 Chinese deployed today. China is the second-biggest funder of U.N. peacekeeping after the U.S. and the biggest troop provider of the five permanent Security Council members. U.N. insiders said China is lobbying for one of its officials to head the U.N. peacekeeping office next year.
In 2017, China will complete its first overseas military outpost, in the African country of Djibouti. By 2020, Mr. Xi aims to overhaul China’s military for other operations abroad.
One of Mr. Xi’s goals is to protect the nation’s expanding global interests and citizens abroad. China’s leaders were “stunned” by the deaths in Juba, said one senior Western diplomat involved in discussions with China on South Sudan. “They’re fast realizing you cannot be a commercial giant without being an imperial power in some way.”
So far, the deaths don’t appear to have changed government policy. Beijing has said it is proceeding with its peacekeeping-force expansion. The senior Chinese defense official said China had no plans to withdraw or add troops in South Sudan.
That said, the deaths forced some hard questions to the forefront. “They have to decide how far they want to go in being physically present in those unstable situations,” said Princeton Lyman, U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan from 2011 through 2013. “What is their objective as a world power?”
Although China has provided police, engineers and medics as peacekeepers since 1990, only under Mr. Xi has it deployed combat troops, in South Sudan and Mali. China had lost peacekeepers before—16 since 1990—but never combat troops and mostly through illness, accident or natural disaster.
China didn’t plan to become so embroiled in Sudan. Its companies in the mid-1990s bought into oil fields abandoned by their U.S. counterparts after Washington accused Sudan’s government of terrorism ties. Matters became complicated when South Sudan won independence in 2011. China’s oil fields were mostly inside the new state. In 2013, civil war erupted.
Mr. Xi was in his first year in power and trying to establish himself as a strong military leader, ordering troops to protect China’s overseas interests and prepare for “real combat,” while pressing territorial claims in disputed Asian waters.
In January 2015, Beijing sent a 700-strong infantry battalion to join more than 300 Chinese engineers, medics and transport forces in the U.N.’s South Sudan mission. China’s goal was partly to avoid a repeat of its Libya experience, when Chinese companies lost most of their investments in a civil war that forced Beijing to evacuate 35,000 of its citizens in 2011. Chinese leaders also thought the military needed experience overseas.
State media hailed the deployment as a milestone and broadcast footage of the troops on patrol, highlighting their discipline, training and modern equipment.
Members of China’s peacekeeping infantry battalion arrived in Juba, South Sudan, in 2015. Photo: Sun Jiangchao/Xinhua/Zuma Press
The Chinese battalion is mostly based at a Juba compound called U.N. House, including two tent camps housing about 37,000 internally displaced people. A sign declares one camp was co-funded by China National Petroleum Corp. The troops’ main task is to patrol the perimeter.
Soldiers live in whitewashed barracks considered the compound’s best equipped. They eat Chinese food with ingredients from local Chinese-owned supermarkets and play basketball, sometimes with locals.
Cpl. Li, who arrived in December with the second troop rotation, was proud to be part of the historic mission, relatives said. But in occasional phone calls home, his mother said she could tell he was finding it tough. The displaced-people camps were overwhelmed, drinking water was in short supply and security was deteriorating.
His WeChat messages became more somber. One in March read: “When a soldier is sacrificed for the motherland on a nameless front line, his grave is the place where he falls, his shroud the uniform he wears.”
The July 7 violence began in the town center, then moved near U.N. House. Government forces with tanks, machine guns and attack helicopters exchanged fire with rebels in bushes.
On July 10, government forces moved tanks within 400 meters of U.N. House, firing on a building where rebels had taken refuge, according to Chinese accounts. Rebels began fleeing toward a compound entrance where a Chinese armored vehicle was parked with six soldiers in the back, including Cpl. Li.
Inside, soldiers frantically sent messages to friends and family. “Sister, we’re being hit, there are bombs coming!” said one received by a Chinese civilian in Juba. Witnesses described a projectile—identified by U.N. investigators as a rocket-propelled grenade—hitting the vehicle and exploding inside.
Many Chinese were shocked by footage of the aftermath of the attack that killed two Chinese peacekeepers. Photo: CCTV/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Chinese military dispatched an ambulance. Inside it, a Chinese soldier tried to keep Cpl. Li conscious.
“Leilei hold on, hold on,” the soldier recalled saying in a television interview.
Cpl. Li was pronounced dead at 8:43 p.m.
The U.N. said the vehicle was unintentionally caught in crossfire. Several witnesses said government forces were firing toward the camp. Lt. Gen. Johnson Mogoa Kimani Ondieki, the U.N. force commander there and a Kenyan, said he believed the vehicle was struck because government forces thought the U.N. was shielding rebels.
Lt. Gen. Ondieki said a ballistic investigation would reveal whether the grenade launcher was made in China. The senior Chinese defense official said: “We need to focus on who used this weapon, not who manufactured it.”
The U.N. announced early this month it was replacing Lt. Gen. Ondieki after its investigation blamed poor leadership for a “chaotic and ineffective” response to the July violence. A Kenyan defense-force official said Lt. Gen. Ondieki declined to comment, referring to a Kenyan government statement protesting his ouster.
Adding to the soul-searching in China, the U.N. investigation also found that Chinese troops abandoned defensive positions at least twice and refused to intervene to stop Western aid workers being raped. China’s foreign ministry called that finding “irresponsible criticism” and urged better protection for peacekeepers.
South Sudanese government officials didn’t respond to inquiries about the U.N. report. South Sudan’s Vice President, Taban Deng Gai, in September said the government was still investigating the July violence.
Chinese state media barely mentioned the fighting in its first three days, reporting it in depth only after the soldiers died.
Many Chinese soldiers today are from what the Chinese call the “post-90” generation that has only known increasing prosperity, uses social media voraciously and is perceived as quick to criticize authority. The cohort comprises mostly children raised under China’s one-child policy, so fatalities are likely to leave parents with no one to support them in old age.
Cpl. Li in a photo he shared on social media.
The death of Cpl. Li, youngest of the three Chinese soldiers killed in Mali and South Sudan, resonated widely as his poignant final messages spread online.
On July 7, the day before his birthday, he posted photos of himself as a civilian, as a new recruit in camouflage, as a U.N. peacekeeper in blue beret. “Growing up year by year,” he wrote.
“Are you back, handsome?” wrote Zhang Lijuan, a village neighbor.
“No auntie, six months more.”
He called his mother on his birthday but exchanged few words, as the line was bad and she was going to work, his mother said.
A cousin, Li Chao, worried later that day after seeing his message with the helicopter photo. “What’s up?” she replied. He never answered.
Cpl. Li’s family said they didn’t know he was dead until July 11 news reports named him. Even then, they weren’t sure—another soldier in his brigade shared the name. Cpl. Li’s mother called brigade headquarters; it couldn’t tell her, she said.
Then she saw her son’s birth date and photograph online, she and other family members said, and only after that did the military notify the family. China’s Defense Ministry said military officials decided to inform the family in person, rather than by phone, and did so later that afternoon.
His mother had supported his enlisting, considering it a steady job. “I never thought there would be this kind of danger,” she said. “He went to protect people, didn’t he? We never imagined there would be rockets.”
When Cpl. Li returned to China, his coffin and the other soldier’s, draped in Chinese flags, were received by an honor guard and paraded through streets lined with some 200,000 people, live on state television.
Cpl. Li’s mother, in black at right, mourned him at a funeral ceremony in July. Photo: Zeng Tao/Xinhua /ZUMA PRESS
They were cremated and flown home to cemeteries reserved for “revolutionary martyrs,” mostly from China’s civil war and Japanese occupation. A cousin of Cpl. Li’s, Li Shuai, described picking shrapnel from the ashes.
The military delivered his belongings, most of which sit in canvas bags in his room—bedding, toiletries, a few clothes.
There is also his diary. An entry reads: “If one day I’m gone, don’t miss me. I chose this. I have no regrets.”
China says UN has explicit regulations on whether India can develop Ballistic Nuclear Missiles
Without referring to Pakistan, China on Tuesday advocated “preserving the strategic balance and stability in South Asia,” after India successfully test-fired Agni-V ballistic missile.
“China always maintains that preserving the strategic balance and stability in South Asia is conducive to peace and prosperity of regional countries and beyond,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying in response to a question.
Without going into details during her regular press briefing, Ms. Hua also signaled that there are restrictions imposed by the UN Security Council on India for developing missiles carrying nuclear weapons.
“We have noted reports on India's test-firing of Agni-V ballistic missile. The UN Security Council has explicit regulations on whether India can develop ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons,'' she observed.
Agni V , with a range above 5000 km, can carry a payload of 1.5 tonnes, three times the minimum weight of an atomic warhead. It is also more survivable to a counterstrike, as it is mounted on a TATRA truck, which imparts mobility to the weapon-system. Missiles having nuclear warheads launched from fixed silos can be more easily targeted.
The spokesperson stressed that India and China, as emerging economies, were not rivals but partners, following media reports from India and Japan.
“We also notice reports, including some from India and Japan, speculating whether India made this move to counter China. They need to ask the Indian side for their intention behind the move. On the Chinese part, China and India have reached an important consensus that the two countries are not rivals for competition but partners for cooperation as two significant developing countries and emerging economies,” she said.
Ms. Hua pointed out that “China is willing to work alongside regional countries, including India, to maintain the long-lasting peace, stability and prosperity of the region.”
She added, “We also hope that relevant media can report in an objective and sensible manner and do more things to contribute to the mutual trust between China and India and regional peace and stability.”
Tectonic 4 China
I'L cut ya u Us- China relations see full video
Tectonic 3 Paki
Pakistan is between Haiti and Zimbabwe ,and pipe dreams of cutting India with thousand cuts (copied Chinese idea
Lingchi) for thousand year war
A global intelligence analyst explains why the ‘real’ China is not the China we think of
Chinese state run media mocks Indias submarines, meanwhile, their own submarines radiate their own crew. lol
chicom mentality. But yet, this propaganda BS works! Problem, is it makes China look stronger, India weaker, and that still won't help China win a war.
When India saw its intention to supply Brahmos and Akash to vietnam, China literally got rattled. This tells the other story.
It only shows chicom's growing insecurities and hopelssness resulting from rise in Indias technology.
Separate names with a comma.