Asia pivot threatened

[huaxia rox]

The only problem in getting veto is china and to an extent america.

Germany is just like japan a setting sun.

20 years ago, japan 's gdp was twice the chinese which did not make much difference.


France, Russia and britain have pledghed support to us in getting veto ( though in politics, deceit is the norm, they have more sense of honour than the treacherous han chinese who kick the ladder supporting them. )

one simple question whats in it for prc to support indian cause to join UNSC??

in a real world you need to know the price and the benifit at the same time.

 

[Zero_Wing]

new weapons of what?

can they take huangyan island?

What your calling shoal an island hahahahahaha

 

[Compersion]

one simple question whats in it for prc to support indian cause to join UNSC??

in a real world you need to know the price and the benifit at the same time.

Joint Statement on the State Visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to India
May 20, 2013

...

32. Noting their convergence on global issues, both sides agreed to enhance their cooperation in multilateral forums including United Nations. China attaches great importance to India's status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India's aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations including in the Security Council.

I guess it was put in the candid meetings that India would move ahead for UNSC membership without PRC support (In a way telling them that we have the necessary support required already and they dont have any say on denying India). I have to say the visit of the Chinese Premier has been good. Too bad for the Ladakh incursion but I suppose that is the reality. There are two relationships with PRC one is economic and one is strategic. I am not sure if they both overlap. Looking ahead to the next visit by a important figure and see what type of reality India encounters.

 

[Compersion]

The only problem in getting veto is china and to an extent america.

Germany is just like japan a setting sun.

20 years ago, japan 's gdp was twice the chinese which did not make much difference.

France, Russia and britain have pledghed support to us in getting veto ( though in politics, deceit is the norm, they have more sense of honour than the treacherous han chinese who kick the ladder supporting them. )

France, Russia, United States and also Great Britain have pledged support to India for UNSC membership. The PRC support (has and) will come.

The new structure of the UNSC ought to be United States, Russia, Great Britain, Peoples Republic of China, European Union (France at seat of table with the veto), Republic of India, Brazil, and South Africa. The tricky questions are Japan, South America and Africa. Germany would be willing to give up its seat for a larger European Union voice and Japan has the United States umbrella. I say we get India on the UNSC table now. Also the EAM leaders have to make a position that countries that are against Indias candidature are supporting Pakistani tirade against India (plain and simple - you are not supporting India because you hate us). There will be a movement that the UNSC has to be about about the representation and representativeness of the UNSC. The determination to be on the table has to be about who is able and mature country deserving that plays by the rules and has played a role in delivering peace. There is no doubt that India will be on the UNSC table the only question is when.

 

[aerokan]

It is the reality and I challenge anyone to disprove this.


I can present whole history of treachery from the deceit practised on xiongnus to tobas to xianbei by Ran Min to sending a spy like xuang zang to dealing with jurchen and so on.

In 20th century, the same treachery was practiced by chinese on tibet, and then on USSR which had enabled a beggar country to stand on its own.


the USA assisted chinese immensely in 1971 to 1991 but now the chinese are trying to bully USA.

as i have said that chinese love to kick the ladder which supports them and follow the lenin's dictum


"support any one just as rope supports a hanging man"

Your mistake is that you used two similar meaning words side by side. It's like stating the obvious that a line is straight :cool2:

 

[huaxia rox]

Joint Statement on the State Visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to India
May 20, 2013

...

32. Noting their convergence on global issues, both sides agreed to enhance their cooperation in multilateral forums including United Nations. China attaches great importance to India's status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India's aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations including in the Security Council.

I guess it was put in the candid meetings that India would move ahead for UNSC membership without PRC support (In a way telling them that we have the necessary support required already and they dont have any say on denying India). I have to say the visit of the Chinese Premier has been good. Too bad for the Ladakh incursion but I suppose that is the reality. There are two relationships with PRC one is economic and one is strategic. I am not sure if they both overlap. Looking ahead to the next visit by a important figure and see what type of reality India encounters.

1 as a matter of fact cant find a single word that can tell me prc should or will or needs to support india to get some permenent seat in UNSC. the part you quoted may indicate prc supports indian troops to get more involved in UN peace making missions.

2 you have not ansewed me the question my indian friend. which is 'whats in it for prc to support indian cause to join UNSC??' for example why chinese want to sell or buy some indian stuff? because we think we can make money from selling stuff or get some benifits from buying your products.

 

[Compersion]

1 as a matter of fact cant find a single word that can tell me prc should or will or needs to support india to get some permenent seat in UNSC. the part you quoted may indicate prc supports indian troops to get more involved in UN peace making missions.

2 you have not ansewed me the question my indian friend. which is 'whats in it for prc to support indian cause to join UNSC??' for example why chinese want to sell or buy some indian stuff? because we think we can make money from selling stuff or get some benifits from buying your products.

In 1971-1972 why did the PRC get its seat on the UNSC and who did they request, which countries supported them and did not support them. The history of the UNSC is that the "winners" of the world war got the seats as they would safeguard world peace. Its beyond doubt that India played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC (I am not including the KMT calculation here). In fact there are reports that the Communist PRC used the world war 2 to "fuel up" and "weaponise" as well as prepare for the eventual fight against the KMT (that really fought the war for the Chinese people). Until 1971-1972 who were the members of the UNSC (history tells a good lesson).

Going to your questions i dont understand what you are trying to say. Your comments are under the assumption that the PRC determines the seating of the UNSC and the fate of regional and world architecture in the future. In fact your statement shows that PRC does not want the world to develop and would be willing to be selfish in its rejection of India as a UNSC member. Your reasoning is "what will china gain". When the chinese learn that the world develops not because what it thinks the better. In fact the PRC leadership wants to sit on the big table and with mature countries. They want to play by the rules to validate its position to the outside world. Thats why they (have) and will support Indias seat. They wont want to be a spoil sport in the end, their system cannot manage that.

My chinese buddy please answer this question: Does PRC want to hold down the global world development and peace by denying India a seat on the UNSC. Thats the big question. India will get its seat on UNSC with and without PRC support. Its only a matter of time. In fact the friendship of India and PRC will grow the sooner they support India to be a UNSC member.

 

[huaxia rox]

1 how little the contribution of cpc in ww2 to china doesnt make difference of prc taking the seat. when majority began to recognize prc represents china then rocs room in the un can be totally squeezed. so what happened back then is not about china going for a perminent seat in UNSC and in need of supports but is about who can represent china which already got the seat there. like when your party win the election your party can lead the country but who in your party is going to be in charge of the nation is probably decided later on. so the whole thing was not about which party but who in the party will be in charge.

2 the us formerly recognized prc in late 1970s. the ussr never though roc legal. then what else? in front of the 2 major players none of other countries meant anything back in 1970s. support or not prc would have the seat.

3 back to now.....as a matter of fact prc cant determine anything in the un like you questioned of course but if you think with or without chinese supports you can get what you need in UNSC then be my guest. just stear clear of talking to chinese and save your energy for some other valuable things you think.

4 as a side note 'selfish' is the word i can see you use. yes have to be selfish in the field of diplomacy and foreign relations afamkg. no one looks for your own interests besides you yourself in the world.

 

[Compersion]

Global UN diplomacy the question is not "whats in it for prc to support indian cause to join UNSC" . In 1971 the question was not "Whats in it for USA and Russia to support the CPC (PRC) to replace the KMT (ROC) in the UNSC". The question at that time and the question that is now is what is required for global world development and peace with permanent member states in the UNSC that are representative, promote as well as support the current and future global and regional architecture.

Also it is a fact that India played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC (I am not including KMT here in this calculation). You will hear more about this in the future from the current UNSC members (UK, America, Russia and France).

Like I questioned - does PRC want to hold down the global world development and peace by denying India a seat on the UNSC. Thats the big question. You mention about being selfish is the need for diplomacy. But there is a fine thin line the PRC is playing by being selfish without harming others. The "Chinese Dream" is clearly towards a path of harming others. If you consider being selfish a camouflage for being harmful to others that's the problem. The Chinese Dream is about (harmful) power-force projection. In fact I can predict there will be a internal power struggle within the CPC because of this and which path is more appropriate harmful and unharmful (peaceful) development. Unfortunately the experience, skill and patience of the CPC leadership to control the people of PRC might not allow for the peaceful approach.

And relating this to this "Pivot" topic. The South East Asia region is getting American influence that is providing a handbrake to the Chinese Dream. The Chinese Dream wants to force itself into South Asia and Middle east. Lets not forget all the countries ask "Whats in it for us to get friendly and close to PRC". The Answer is "North Korea and Pakistan".

All Asian countries want India on the UNSC table. All permanent UNSC member states want India on the UNSC table. And as mentioned earlier India will get its seat on UNSC with and without PRC support. Its only a matter of time. In fact the friendship of India and PRC will grow the sooner they support the system to get India to be a UNSC member.

India will not ask PRC for support. This is because the world powers and global world order already wants India on the UNSC table. India knows PRC has not overtaken Russia. And I wonder why the PRC tells the whole world that they are better compared to Russia. At least Russia does not harm others with its Diplomacy. Yes they are selfish.

Its upto the PRC itself if they want to talk to India and support India for UNSC membership.

And I leave you with three points:

1. Ladakh Incursion settled in a mature way (by India).

2. Chinese Economic Premier makes (his first) overseas visit to India

3. Joint Statement on the State Visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to India May 20, 2013

...

32. Noting their convergence on global issues, both sides agreed to enhance their cooperation in multilateral forums including United Nations. China attaches great importance to India's status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India's aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations including in the Security Council.


Did India ask PRC for that. If you can answer me what did PRC gain from the above three points that would be great. Please state with point no 1.

I end by saying that it seems PRC gave India what it wants - the global comity of (reasonable) nations appreciates India more compared to last month.

 

[huaxia rox]

1 either prc or roc got the c here which means china. in ww2 roc was the only legal goverment of china but the bottem line is the country was led by chinese ourselves while in the case of india your country back then was called british india and led by a foreign rule aka the uk. many soldiers from british india also became soldiers of pakistan not just india later on. but either way china getting the seat after ww2 was due to its big contribution.

2 yes there were some things serious in it for the us and the ussr to suppoert prc to replace roc in the UNSC back in 1970s. if you really dont know that then raise the question so i can show you the answers next time if necessary while in the case of india nothing major in it for prc to support you. if not tell me what it is?

3 you said india doesnt need chinese support then why did you do this? for fun?Patil to seek China's support for India's UNSC bid - Rediff.com India News and who do you think you need to support you? if prc gives a veto then what do you think you can mend? those you believe you need can save your cause?

4 yes prc wants a peaceful development and to realize chinese dream but how is it related to supporting india to join UNSC? are you telling me if india cant join it then prc cant get a peaceful development? then what happened in the last 30 years?

5 if prc has or hasent overtaken russia is related to what is specificlly being discussed. if its about countries GDP yes we have. if its about nuclear war heads no we have not? is there any problem?

6 in terms of the part where you said chinese PM picked india as his first overseas country to visit. well yes you are right and chinese PMs tradiction unlike president is to visit asian countries first just like PM li keqiangs predecessor aka PM wen jiabao who visited thailand right after he took the position in 2003: Premier Wen Jiabao Meets His Thai Counterpart Thaksin Shinawatra

'He said that Thailand is the first country Wen visits after he took office, which demonstrates the friendship of the two countries.'

the question is does that mean prc also needs to support thailand for some UNSC seat?


7 you quoted the same thing over and over again about Joint Statement then should i show your some joint statement between india and pakistan to see if that sort of things really can mean any thing??

 

[Compersion]

The good thing with the Chinese people (including Communists) is that with Indians we can talk frankly. You can make your point(s) and we can make our point(s). With this there is a caveat that what the Chinese say and what the Indians say gets analysed and judged by neutrals and that I mean that by the global comity of (reasonable) nations. Its only right.

With reasonableness can you as a Chinese say your position is persuasive compared to the India position. Your counter points are only trying to demote what was said earlier. Not once you are in agreement and not even once you have suggested alternative options and future actions.

The India position is that the UNSC needs to upgrade to a new global reality that for global world development and peace there needs to be a representative UNSC to promote as well as support the current and future global and regional architecture.

It's a "Mature" thinking and becoming of a regional and global leader.

Now leading again to being judged by "global comity of (reasonable) nations" (for your sake you can refer this interpretation to G20 nations). You discount the importance to the CPC PRC leadership of these viewpoint(s) from the global comity of (reasonable) nations. Can you tell me what would happen if all these nations prefer and support Indias views and position.

The answer is the PRC leadership will become paranoid. To prevent this inevitable position is the psyche behind certain PRC positions. Can you say the PRC leadership is "Mature". PRC leadership wants to sit on the big table and with mature countries. They want to play by the rules to validate its position to the outside world.

The reality is that the Pivot of USA influence expanding in South East Asia is the underlying approach and realization by the global comity of (reasonable) nations saying that the Chinese Dream is about (harmful) power-force projection. Like I said the experience, skill and patience of the CPC leadership to control the people of PRC might not allow for it to have a peaceful approach to the South East Asia region. Also USA will have influence in South East Asia and you will see that this will include Russia.

Its good you compare yourself to Pakistan. Unfortunately India does not. We understand the reality that PRC is a young nation, that has been gifted some ornaments by others, and is growing up but does not like to be dictated by others (no one does). Fortunately the fact is that Indians and the nation of India has the DNA, personality, and temperament to be a leader of Asia and part of the structure for the future global and regional architecture. I lead this from the positions India has taken as a nation in international affairs. I know you will bring in your best friends Pakistan and North Korea to demote this point.

India is part of the future global and regional architecture and the quicker this occurs the better it will be for the betterment and advancement of the human race.
The beauty of this is that compared to when PRC got the UNSC seat in 1971 - India would get it done in an honourable and merited way. It would be beautiful and in fact it has a certain deserving aura to it when completed will really benefit the region and global peace. A beautiful story that is only a matter of time and in fact the friendship of India and PRC will grow the sooner they (be part of this beautiful story) support the system for India to be a UNSC permanent member.

A beautiful story that can be compared to one that can be (will be) heard all over the world where India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC. This was done under the larger umbrella of India as a nation seeking independence through non-violent means from a nation that did not believe in (harmful) power-force projection. A nation that before and after independence India can call a partner. Non-violence self-determination is also beautiful story that originates from India and you ought to read about it one day.

Also yes you can please tell me as I do not know when you say – "yes there were some things serious in it for the us and the ussr to suppoert prc to replace roc in the UNSC back in 1970s. if you really dont know that then raise the question so i can show you the answers next time if necessary" Please do share this.

You also still have not answered why does the PRC think they are better as a nation and people compared to Russia (and also what did PRC gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by India). Its related to this topic if you really do not know – the answer is this: Russia influence in South East Asia. PRC as a nation and as a society think it has overtaken Russia. The focus on the (deserving) USA influence is ignoring the (deserving) Russia influence in South East Asia. To counter-balance the (harmful) power-force projection of the PRC.

Its good talking with you and you will see in the future the Chinese (be it the Communists if not others) along with India as partners and in support of one another will play a leading role together in global world development and peace.

Please do visit India you will be accorded a warm welcome and we will do business together. Like the PRC Prime Minister had.

 

[huaxia rox]

1 you just answer me a simple question. is there anything in it for prc to support india to go get the perminent seat in UNSC. yes or no? if yes what is it?

2 back in 1970s the us needed prc so its obvious they had motivation to support prc. i dont know you are just puporsely acting as if you didnt know this or want to waste my time because this is a piece of known truth to everyone that knows a tiny bit about the world.

Nixon's landmark visit to China in 1972 opened the door to US-PRC relations, and by 1978, the US had switched diplomatic recognition to the Mainland, viewing the PRC as a hedge against its other Communist rival, the Soviet Union. Sitting with Communist China on the UN Security Council, US-China relations warmed on economic and trade matters, even against the backdrop of tacit US support for Taiwan's defense against potential Chinese aggression.
The United States

3 for ussr although the relationship between it and prc had problems from probably 1960s-80s but they left nothing to choose. a cpc china aka prc and kmt china aka roc which is anyway a real alliance of the us then which one you can pick to support? its not to pick the good one for ussr but the one that is not that bad to them so they can only choose prc.

The Soviet Union had recognized the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as the true Chinese government, and wanted the PRC to replace the Nationalist Chinese delegation at the United Nations.
Soviets boycott United Nations Security Council — History.com This Day in History — 1/13/1950

4 you still dont seem to pay attention on the huge difference here. china had the seat right after ww2 due to its contribution and in 1970s the issue was about which govement prc or roc can represent china in unsc but it was not about adding new perminant members into the unsc which is the thing india now wants to do. can you see the major difference here??

5 i still dont know the two parts you said. one is about russia. you better quote the sentences said by chinese directly about how 'why does the PRC think they are better as a nation and people compared to Russia ' i need your reference. what i said is prc of couse has bigger economy in size than russia. does anyone need to doubt this? i can also raise similar question: why does india think they are better as a nation and people compared to the uk??

6 what did PRC gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by India)?? actually what i want to ask is:what did india gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by prc)?

7 you kept saying india doesnt need chinese support for unsc seat but why havnt you responded my findings?http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/may/26/patil-to-seek-chinas-support-for-indias-unsc-bid.htm any comments??

 

[Compersion]

Thanks for replying by point. Also warm greetings and congratulations to the PRC on the space launch and the meeting in California between the PRC President and POA. Continuing your precedent by bullet points and focusing on this topic "Asia pivot threatened":

Re. 1:
From your words it presupposes that PRC wants to hold down the global world development and peace by denying India a seat on the UNSC. Thats the main reasoning. As mentioned earlier India will get its seat on UNSC with and without PRC support. It will be only a matter of time. In fact the friendship of India and PRC will grow the sooner they support the system to get India to be a UNSC member.

Also whats in it for PRC I attach the following article – if you wish to debate its contents please bring out any excerpt and it will populate why PRC needs (and needed) India:
The Copenhagen Protocol: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit - SPIEGEL ONLINE

If we delve further into the merits of Indias (at the present time) candidature compared PRC candidature in 1971-72 this is the primary reason why PRC will not stand in the way of India getting its seat on the UNSC. Again I reference the story that can be (will be) heard all over the world where India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC.

The India position is that the UNSC needs to upgrade to a new global reality that for global world development and peace there needs to be a representative UNSC to promote as well as support the current and future global and regional architecture.

In fact India on the UNSC will probably see more development and advancement in the short-term to medium-term for the world and Asia region compared to the total period that PRC has had its seat on the UNSC. This is no disrespect to PRC it's only a matter of fact that India through its learning and experience in international affairs and its upbringing is more relevant to safeguarding the principles of the region and world development.

Re.2
You have referred to 1971-72 where the USA and Russia permitted the CPC to replace the KMT in the UNSC. In relative comparison currently USA and Russia already support India's UNSC candidature. Infact even better compared to 1971-72 India has got France, PRC, UK support. Also you refer to "piece of known truth to everyone that knows a tiny bit about the world" I thought the people of the world thought that PRC got its seat in 1971 on the UNSC because of world development and peace and the world architecture at that time (I guess I was wrong). Not because it backstabbed Russia and was supported to get its seat by the USA. Also the Americans did not hedge they only took advantage of the PRC maturity in international affairs and got the Russians to realise the truth and what the PRC for who they really are. The Americans are too smart and powerful to require a hedge.

I wonder why India will get its seat on the UNSC. Is it not a mature behaviour (would like your comment on this) that India has not backstabbed either Russia and USA and has good relations with both.

In fact after the PRC backstabbed Russia it has backstabbed USA (cyber security, economic affairs, and more). The Americans do not need to hedge against PRC. You might say (later) the Americans support PRC because they have not choice (please refer to Re 3). I wonder how long before the PRC thinks it has overtaken USA (like they think with Russia):
Obama, Xi Jinping seek to ease tensions on cybersecurity - Times Of India

Obama said Washington wants "an international economic order where nations are playing by the same rules, where trade is free and fair and where the United States and China work together to address issues like cyber security and protection of intellectual property".

The people of the world wonder why that was said by the POA and that PRC must play by the same rules of economic world order as other major nations. There is some thought process in India that whisper that Indians play (fairly) by rules of the economic world order as other major nations. I guess that would be spoken in the state visit by Prime Minister Singh to USA later this year. Not sure what's the difference between a state visit and a pow-wow visit.
Obama's pow-wow with Xi Jinping - FT.com

Re 3.
You are saying that Russia supports PRC because they have no choice. I think you need to appreciate the Russian relationship a bit more and not disrespect them. I wonder why the PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia. With the recent launch of Shenzhou 10 the people of the world wonder if the PRC citizens will acknowledge and thank Russia with "controlled passion". Also you have realise the focus on the (deserving) USA influence is ignoring the (deserving) Russia influence in South East Asia (please refer to point 8 later).

Re 4.
You reference the reason why the people from the China region got the UNSC seat. And you are in conformity and in agreement by stating that India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC and that at the present time India already has support of all the P-5 UNSC members to join them on the UNSC. Is that correct.

Re 5.
This is in reference to the current topic ""Asia pivot threatened". PRC as a nation and as a society think it has overtaken Russia. The focus on the (deserving) USA influence is ignoring the (deserving) Russia influence in South East Asia. As earlier I attach two articles – if you wish to debate its contents please bring out any excerpt and it will populate why PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia:

China: President Xi Jinping's efforts to cement ties with Russia | GulfNews.com
Money Talks: China-Russia Energy Relations after Xi Jinping's Visit to Moscow | Brookings Institution

Re 6.
You have asked a question that what did India gain from the Ladakh incursion that was settled in a mature way (by PRC). I refer to the following entities that the PRC have dealt by way of (harmful) power-force projection towards their territorial disputes in recent time:
Japan
Vietnam
South Korea
Hong Kong
India
Russia
Philippines
Taiwan
USA
Indonesia
Singapore
Malaysia

I ask again: what did PRC gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by India)

Re 7:
I see no where it says India needs PRC support. There are references where there are discussions that a mature country will undertake that is already on the UNSC. In fact if you do a proper analysis PRC needs India support in world affairs. Taking excerpts from the article you mentioned:
" Noting that India attaches "great importance" to its relations with China, the President said both countries acknowledge that their partnership transcends the purely bilateral ties and has global implications."

It's a mature way its to say to the PRC that they need Indias support. Also a interesting anecdote about President Pratibha Patil she was selected for certain reasons. A bit like a certain Premier Wen Jiabao. I refer to this because of the article in Re. 1.

Point 8:
A certain American citizen Mr. Edward Snowden is currently in Hong Kong. Can you explain why he is there. Please reference to the current topic: "Asia pivot threatened". I wonder what will happen if Russia says something on this topic.

Wishing you a good day and prosperity in the China region.

 

[Compersion]

Thanks for replying by point. Also warm greetings and congratulations to the PRC on the space launch and the meeting in California between the PRC President and POA. Continuing your precedent by bullet points and focusing on this topic "Asia pivot threatened":

Re. 1:
From your words it presupposes that PRC wants to hold down the global world development and peace by denying India a seat on the UNSC. Thats the main reasoning. As mentioned earlier India will get its seat on UNSC with and without PRC support. It will be only a matter of time. In fact the friendship of India and PRC will grow the sooner they support the system to get India to be a UNSC member.

Also whats in it for PRC I attach the following article – if you wish to debate its contents please bring out any excerpt and it will populate why PRC needs (and needed) India:
The Copenhagen Protocol: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit - SPIEGEL ONLINE

If we delve further into the merits of Indias (at the present time) candidature compared PRC candidature in 1971-72 this is the primary reason why PRC will not stand in the way of India getting its seat on the UNSC. Again I reference the story that can be (will be) heard all over the world where India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC.

The India position is that the UNSC needs to upgrade to a new global reality that for global world development and peace there needs to be a representative UNSC to promote as well as support the current and future global and regional architecture.

In fact India on the UNSC will probably see more development and advancement in the short-term to medium-term for the world and Asia region compared to the total period that PRC has had its seat on the UNSC. This is no disrespect to PRC it's only a matter of fact that India through its learning and experience in international affairs and its upbringing is more relevant to safeguarding the principles of the region and world development.

Re.2
You have referred to 1971-72 where the USA and Russia permitted the CPC to replace the KMT in the UNSC. In relative comparison currently USA and Russia already support India's UNSC candidature. Infact even better compared to 1971-72 India has got France, PRC, UK support. Also you refer to "piece of known truth to everyone that knows a tiny bit about the world" I thought the people of the world thought that PRC got its seat in 1971 on the UNSC because of world development and peace and the world architecture at that time (I guess I was wrong). Not because it backstabbed Russia and was supported to get its seat by the USA. Also the Americans did not hedge they only took advantage of the PRC maturity in international affairs and got the Russians to realise the truth and what the PRC for who they really are. The Americans are too smart and powerful to require a hedge.

I wonder why India will get its seat on the UNSC. Is it not a mature behaviour (would like your comment on this) that India has not backstabbed either Russia and USA and has good relations with both.

In fact after the PRC backstabbed Russia it has backstabbed USA (cyber security, economic affairs, and more). The Americans do not need to hedge against PRC. You might say (later) the Americans support PRC because they have not choice (please refer to Re 3). I wonder how long before the PRC thinks it has overtaken USA (like they think with Russia):
Obama, Xi Jinping seek to ease tensions on cybersecurity - Times Of India

Obama said Washington wants "an international economic order where nations are playing by the same rules, where trade is free and fair and where the United States and China work together to address issues like cyber security and protection of intellectual property".

The people of the world wonder why that was said by the POA and that PRC must play by the same rules of economic world order as other major nations. There is some thought process in India that whisper that Indians play (fairly) by rules of the economic world order as other major nations. I guess that would be spoken in the state visit by Prime Minister Singh to USA later this year. Not sure what's the difference between a state visit and a pow-wow visit.
Obama's pow-wow with Xi Jinping - FT.com

Re 3.
You are saying that Russia supports PRC because they have no choice. I think you need to appreciate the Russian relationship a bit more and not disrespect them. I wonder why the PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia. With the recent launch of Shenzhou 10 the people of the world wonder if the PRC citizens will acknowledge and thank Russia with "controlled passion". Also you have realise the focus on the (deserving) USA influence is ignoring the (deserving) Russia influence in South East Asia (please refer to point 8 later).

Re 4.
You reference the reason why the people from the China region got the UNSC seat. And you are in conformity and in agreement by stating that India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC and that at the present time India already has support of all the P-5 UNSC members to join them on the UNSC. Is that correct.

Re 5.
This is in reference to the current topic ""Asia pivot threatened". PRC as a nation and as a society think it has overtaken Russia. The focus on the (deserving) USA influence is ignoring the (deserving) Russia influence in South East Asia. As earlier I attach two articles – if you wish to debate its contents please bring out any excerpt and it will populate why PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia:

China: President Xi Jinping's efforts to cement ties with Russia | GulfNews.com
Money Talks: China-Russia Energy Relations after Xi Jinping's Visit to Moscow | Brookings Institution

Re 6.
You have asked a question that what did India gain from the Ladakh incursion that was settled in a mature way (by PRC). I refer to the following entities that the PRC have dealt by way of (harmful) power-force projection towards their territorial disputes in recent time:
Japan
Vietnam
South Korea
Hong Kong
India
Russia
Philippines
Taiwan
USA
Indonesia
Singapore
Malaysia

I ask again: what did PRC gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by India)

Re 7:
I see no where it says India needs PRC support. There are references where there are discussions that a mature country will undertake that is already on the UNSC. In fact if you do a proper analysis PRC needs India support in world affairs. Taking excerpts from the article you mentioned:
" Noting that India attaches "great importance" to its relations with China, the President said both countries acknowledge that their partnership transcends the purely bilateral ties and has global implications."

It's a mature way its to say to the PRC that they need Indias support. Also a interesting anecdote about President Pratibha Patil she was selected for certain reasons. A bit like a certain Premier Wen Jiabao. I refer to this because of the article in Re. 1.

Point 8:
A certain American citizen Mr. Edward Snowden is currently in Hong Kong. Can you explain why he is there. Please reference to the current topic: "Asia pivot threatened". I wonder what will happen if Russia says something on this topic.

Wishing you a good day and prosperity in the China region.

 

[huaxia rox]

Thanks for replying by point. Also warm greetings and congratulations to the PRC on the space launch and the meeting in California between the PRC President and POA. Continuing your precedent by bullet points and focusing on this topic "Asia pivot threatened":

thank you for your detailed response and all.

Re. 1:
From your words it presupposes that PRC wants to hold down the global world development and peace by denying India a seat on the UNSC. Thats the main reasoning. As mentioned earlier India will get its seat on UNSC with and without PRC support. It will be only a matter of time. In fact the friendship of India and PRC will grow the sooner they support the system to get India to be a UNSC member.

this is the part i pretty fail to understand. whats the relation between 'global world development and peace' and 'India a seat on the UNSC'.....what is your point here? if you look into roc aka taiwans history they become more peaceful after getting replaced by prc in UNSC and their economy grows even quicker after that. UNSC not WB not IMF which mainly is deemed as a politics arena. if you are a peaceful nation then you always are even you not join un. if not always not unless some major changes in your goverment.

Also whats in it for PRC I attach the following article – if you wish to debate its contents please bring out any excerpt and it will populate why PRC needs (and needed) India:
The Copenhagen Protocol: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit - SPIEGEL ONLINE

seriously chinese have our understanding and position in climate issue. we dont need your support at all. in another word even indians wanted to jump into the banwagon of the west be my guest. chinese still would say what we said and do what we did in the climate meeting. so your point is really farfetched.

If we delve further into the merits of Indias (at the present time) candidature compared PRC candidature in 1971-72 this is the primary reason why PRC will not stand in the way of India getting its seat on the UNSC. Again I reference the story that can be (will be) heard all over the world where India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC.
if you played that big a role did anyone germany japan italia surrendered to your goverment offically like japanese surrenderred to china offically in 1945?

i dont actually care if you as a british common wealth country go to REPLACE the uk in UNSC and get the seat. i surely have no problem with that. but if you want CREAT some new seats and CHANGE the current structure well the only thing i can say is you can keep having your faith on your so called merits.

The India position is that the UNSC needs to upgrade to a new global reality that for global world development and peace there needs to be a representative UNSC to promote as well as support the current and future global and regional architecture.

In fact India on the UNSC will probably see more development and advancement in the short-term to medium-term for the world and Asia region compared to the total period that PRC has had its seat on the UNSC. This is no disrespect to PRC it's only a matter of fact that India through its learning and experience in international affairs and its upbringing is more relevant to safeguarding the principles of the region and world development.

very nobale thought to get a perminant seat in UNSC i must say which is for the sake of world peace and development??? are you actually serious because i am not being funny and being very serious in the discussion. anyway if by any chance you really think the way you post then again: all the best. hope india can begin to make all your boders more peaceful in the first place.

Re.2
You have referred to 1971-72 where the USA and Russia permitted the CPC to replace the KMT in the UNSC. In relative comparison currently USA and Russia already support India's UNSC candidature. Infact even better compared to 1971-72 India has got France, PRC, UK support. Also you refer to "piece of known truth to everyone that knows a tiny bit about the world" I thought the people of the world thought that PRC got its seat in 1971 on the UNSC because of world development and peace and the world architecture at that time (I guess I was wrong). Not because it backstabbed Russia and was supported to get its seat by the USA. Also the Americans did not hedge they only took advantage of the PRC maturity in international affairs and got the Russians to realise the truth and what the PRC for who they really are. The Americans are too smart and powerful to require a hedge.

no the world didnt support prc for world peace and that sort of dreams. world supported us because either way we were getting the seat because the us supported us and the ussr also had to support us to at least get rid of roc. all other countries be it uk or france or india just pawns. you know indian forward policy and back stabbed prc in 1960s dont you but you cant stop us from going to the un can you? support or not we were in. powerful countries make things happen and weak ones follow the order.

I wonder why India will get its seat on the UNSC. Is it not a mature behaviour (would like your comment on this) that India has not backstabbed either Russia and USA and has good relations with both.

In fact after the PRC backstabbed Russia it has backstabbed USA (cyber security, economic affairs, and more). The Americans do not need to hedge against PRC. You might say (later) the Americans support PRC because they have not choice (please refer to Re 3). I wonder how long before the PRC thinks it has overtaken USA (like they think with Russia):
Obama, Xi Jinping seek to ease tensions on cybersecurity - Times Of India

well india didnt even want to fight the uk of course it dare not fight the us and russia. never doubt that. but there are pretty much 100 above countries dare not fight the us and russia doesnt that mean they should all get the UNSC seat???

Obama said Washington wants "an international economic order where nations are playing by the same rules, where trade is free and fair and where the United States and China work together to address issues like cyber security and protection of intellectual property".

The people of the world wonder why that was said by the POA and that PRC must play by the same rules of economic world order as other major nations. There is some thought process in India that whisper that Indians play (fairly) by rules of the economic world order as other major nations. I guess that would be spoken in the state visit by Prime Minister Singh to USA later this year. Not sure what's the difference between a state visit and a pow-wow visit.
Obama's pow-wow with Xi Jinping - FT.com

there is a new word called Group of Two - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the biggest 2 economy in the world. you have a look at the p5 members. they got some GDP figures form them to remain there. if you got an economy with the size half of the uk and when it comes to average GDP way worse for india so i still dont think its very convincing for you to have the seat. of course my personal opinion only.

Re 3.
You are saying that Russia supports PRC because they have no choice. I think you need to appreciate the Russian relationship a bit more and not disrespect them. I wonder why the PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia. With the recent launch of Shenzhou 10 the people of the world wonder if the PRC citizens will acknowledge and thank Russia with "controlled passion". Also you have realise the focus on the (deserving) USA influence is ignoring the (deserving) Russia influence in South East Asia (please refer to point 8 later).

cant understand what are you actually talking about. 'I wonder why the PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia.' show me the sentence made by chinese. do you know what is reference or direct quotes? i kept asking that for 3-4 posts and you kept dodgging that. i want to make it clear for the last time. if you ask me prc cis a vis russia and if you talking about nuclear war heads no prc hasnt overtaken russia and if you talking about GDP of country yes prc has overtaken russia. clear and simple. do you have any problem of understanding that or do you have issues with my statement???or do you have evidence to prove otherwise??

Re 4.
You reference the reason why the people from the China region got the UNSC seat. And you are in conformity and in agreement by stating that India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC and that at the present time India already has support of all the P-5 UNSC members to join them on the UNSC. Is that correct.

no i dont think british indians made any notable contribution in ww2 i only know some troops later pows used to led by bose joined japanese army and bose is still viewed as a hero.

Re 5.
This is in reference to the current topic ""Asia pivot threatened". PRC as a nation and as a society think it has overtaken Russia. The focus on the (deserving) USA influence is ignoring the (deserving) Russia influence in South East Asia. As earlier I attach two articles – if you wish to debate its contents please bring out any excerpt and it will populate why PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia:
China: President Xi Jinping's efforts to cement ties with Russia | GulfNews.com
Money Talks: China-Russia Energy Relations after Xi Jinping's Visit to Moscow | Brookings Institution

i really need your quotes and reference here. you are not chinese. i need the original saying by chinese here. actually i mean seriously do you actually understand what i am saying??? direct quotes from a real chinese not indian like you....understand now? thank you.

Re 6.
You have asked a question that what did India gain from the Ladakh incursion that was settled in a mature way (by PRC). I refer to the following entities that the PRC have dealt by way of (harmful) power-force projection towards their territorial disputes in recent time:
Japan
Vietnam
South Korea
Hong Kong
India
Russia
Philippines
Taiwan
USA
Indonesia
Singapore
Malaysia

I ask again: what did PRC gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by India)

singapor us hk? whats your point here??? let me put it this way:


I refer to the following entities that india has dealt by way of (harmful) power-force projection towards their territorial disputes in recent time:
pak
bd
sl
madive
prc
nepal
kashmir
7 sister

I ask again: what did india gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by prc)

Re 7:
I see no where it says India needs PRC support. There are references where there are discussions that a mature country will undertake that is already on the UNSC. In fact if you do a proper analysis PRC needs India support in world affairs. Taking excerpts from the article you mentioned:
" Noting that India attaches "great importance" to its relations with China, the President said both countries acknowledge that their partnership transcends the purely bilateral ties and has global implications."

It's a mature way its to say to the PRC that they need Indias support. Also a interesting anecdote about President Pratibha Patil she was selected for certain reasons. A bit like a certain Premier Wen Jiabao. I refer to this because of the article in Re. 1.

can you simply read the title:

Patil to seek China's support for India's UNSC bid

can you then simply read the first sentence

President Pratibha Patil on Wednesday indicated that she will seek China's support for India's bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council during her six-day visit to the country, the first by an Indian head of state in a decade.

after that what else proof do you need? if you want to over look the obvious them facts are always not close to you.Patil to seek China's support for India's UNSC bid - Rediff.com India News

Point 8:
A certain American citizen Mr. Edward Snowden is currently in Hong Kong. Can you explain why he is there. Please reference to the current topic: "Asia pivot threatened". I wonder what will happen if Russia says something on this topic.

Wishing you a good day and prosperity in the China region.

best of luck my indian friend.

the american you mentioned should better go to swiss. thats the only thing i can say for the sake of his own well being. and if he goes to russia that will be a big mistake.

 

[Compersion]

It is pleasure to also discuss with you in depth and in black and white with fairness for everyone to read. At the outset I am considering this to be my last reply on this topic as I have gotten what I wanted to be said from you. I don't mean any disrespect to you and showing any one-upmanship but the purpose of the messages I had posted was to provide certain themes and secure certain responses from you that have been successful. But if you demand a reply please don't worry.

Also I have noticed that your use of language and grammar is different in each of your posts (not sure why).

Re 1:

Part a: 'global world development and peace' and 'Indias a seat on the UNSC'. It's a bit like non-violence self-determination. At first it is difficult to comprehend for the immature and only the good and the brave use it but the exquisiteness of it is everlasting. The person that discounts it and uses (harmful) power-force projection towards the other gets encircled because people at large always believe in the good over the evil. This has been a component and essence of Indias dealing in International affairs.

Part b: The climate talks had a deeper composition from what you state with regards to the PRC and the role of India.

Part c: Like I said India will get its seat on UNSC with and without PRC support. It will be only a matter of time. The friendship of India and PRC will grow the sooner they support the system to get India to be a UNSC member.

Also your insecurity over India getting the seat is no justification to hold up and prevent the upgrade of a new global reality that is important for global world development and peace that needs to be a representative UNSC to promote as well as support the current and future global and regional architecture. But usually on the big table the PRC plays along.

Also you are trying to get me to respond against UK. A country that after India gained Independence (through non-violence self-determination) we shook hands and remained on good terms. The UK were mature and understood the meaning and deserving nature of the movement and realised the use of (harmful) power-force projection was not just towards the people of India (that included the area from Pakistan to Burma). The (soft) power of this was immense and it would not have been done if it was not for the (good and believers in the rule of law) British.

Part d: India knows what it is doing on its borders. And thank you for the compliment of saying I have noble thoughts. Fortunately the Indias positioning in International affairs is also noble in thought.

Re 2:

"no the world didnt support prc for world peace and that sort of dreams. world supported us because either way we were getting the seat because the us supported us and the ussr also had to support us to at least get rid of roc. all other countries be it uk or france or india just pawns".

Probably one needs to accept this to be the PRC position.

In 1960s India did not backstab PRC. In fact the obscurity of this is the manner in which PRC retreated rearwards and behind the border after the 1960 war. Why did the PRC move backwards and behind the border. Was it because they wanted to give a bloody nose. Was it because they realised they did something wrong. India is able to have a discussion on this in the open and admits it was underprepared against someone that they thought was a partner. Unfortunately India got backstabbed by the PRC. Something which the PRC has done with others. 1960 was not good for India but afterwards it allowed internal inspection to upgrade the military and movement in the direction that gave the world the beautiful 1971 Bangladesh liberation (not related to this topic but could not help - it was good).

Part H:

Vis-à-vis Russia:

I start with a headline as you have used one for our ex-President (headlines can be deceiving):

Nations sign arms-sale pact |Politics |chinadaily.com.cn
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-03/26/content_16344310.htm

this was followed with the following:

The future of Russia-China military cooperation
The future of Russia-China military cooperation | Russia & India Report

Russian officials deny Chinese deal on Su-35s, submarines
Russian officials deny Chinese deal on Su-35s, submarines

You have asked me for quotes. Expressly you have said "cant understand what are you actually talking about. 'I wonder why the PRC thinks it has overtaken Russia.' show me the sentence made by chinese. do you know what is reference or direct quotes? i kept asking that for 3-4 posts and you kept dodgging that. i want to make it clear for the last time. if you ask me prc cis a vis russia and if you talking about nuclear war heads no prc hasnt overtaken russia and if you talking about GDP of country yes prc has overtaken russia. clear and simple. do you have any problem of understanding that or do you have issues with my statement???or do you have evidence to prove otherwise??

I only ask I would like a Chinese reply to the above.

There is a clear disrespect shown towards Russia by the PRC. That's why the relationship is now moving towards more economic terms a bit like Europe and Russia. You know where Europe imports its energy from Russia (reference my earlier posts).

There is no need to make direct Chinese quotations even though it is possible to get them because like Re 8 no one knows what is happening behind the picture and people can only assume.


Re 3:
"well india didnt even want to fight the uk of course it dare not fight the us and russia. never doubt that. but there are pretty much 100 above countries dare not fight the us and russia doesnt that mean they should all get the UNSC seat???"

India did not fight the UK because the movement of non-violent self-determination is and was much powerful compared (harmful) power-force projection. Imagine a person that is willing to die and go to jail because they believe in their meaning as well as implication for the better good for themselves and others but will not use violence against the other person to make them understand. Your reference and use of 100 peaceful countries in comparison to India is not intellectual in its use.

Part I:

The Group of two. I reference 1990. The big two were Soviet Union and USA. Today is 2013 and tomorrow no one knows who the big two will be. But today one can argue that the big two is not USA and PRC. There is an intellectual thought process all over the world that say the PRC is not no.2. I only repeat: Obama said Washington wants "an international economic order where nations are playing by the same rules, where trade is free and fair and where the United States and China work together to address issues like cyber security and protection of intellectual property".

Indias GDP figures are out in the public and its economic data reflects the true picture of what is happening. I am confident in the leaders of India and the mature way they handle the economy. Yes the growth can be faster but I would rather have buildings and infrastructure that are actually used compared to many empty buildings as well as infrastructure used for show.

I am not sure if there has been an economic study done by eminent authors to model and determine what would happen if a country keeps building without demand. I also refer to Re 6 below.

Re 4:
Don't worry you will read more about it - India (including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) played a greater role in world war 2 compared to Communist PRC and that at the present time India already has support of all the P-5 UNSC members to join them on the UNSC.

Re 5:
See above.

Re 6:
You agree that PRC has used and dealt by way of (harmful) power-force projection towards their territorial disputes in recent time for the following and continues to do this:
Japan
Vietnam
South Korea
India
Russia
Philippines
Taiwan
USA
Indonesia
Malaysia

With reference to Singapore I refer to the talks between lee kuan yew and the PRC leadership where mr lee kuan yew demanded the PRC stop (harmful) power-force projection and support that was causing violent riots in the Singapore territory. Once the message was conveyed the riots stopped. (Quotes are available if you look in the right places).

With reference to Hong Kong I refer to the talks between ms margret thatcher and the PRC leadership. The PRC used (harmful) power-force projection. The British left. (Quotes are available if you look in the right places). This has a much deeper analysis that is currently playing out I leave it at that as I do not want to divert from the topic.

Your reference to the 7 sisters. Yes they are our family. Also when a person responds by using an avenue that was not used earlier because of respect for the direction the topic was going. The response is Tibet. It ought to be 8 sisters not 7.

I ask again: what did PRC gain from the Ladakh Incursion that was settled in a mature way (by India). If you do not want to answer at least give an understanding why the PRC made an incursion at that time.

Re 7:
I refer to the above.

Re 8:
It would have been good to get a deeper response from you with regards to Mr. snowden and what he is doing in Hong Kong. The Russian angle is not much but is out there more compared to the influence from PRC. It is a fascinating topic that has deeper meaning compared to what is really spoken right now.

Perhaps I need to put it like this there is (deserving) USA influence in South East Asia and mr snowden has proved that. Each day that mr snowden is in Hong Kong enhances the USA influence and inspiration in the South East Asia. A (American) person that believes in free-speech and righteousness is in Hong Kong. Think about that a bit more and ask yourself this question "Its only one person - what can a single person do".

In India we know very well what a single person can do. It creates a following.

Good luck to you and I wish you well and prosperity and to the whole world.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

National security officials in the military and at the Pentagon are voicing growing worries that the second Obama administration is preparing to jettison the new policy focus on Asia known as the "pivot" or rebalancing.

All of Obama's second term is circling the drain. Need I list the reasons why?

 

[Compersion]

On the side – with Obama it does give a feeling that he is being isolated. Seems the above is more to do with military. The re balance and pivot out to be looked in totality. It's much bigger and has focus also in trade, commerce and relationships. Its huge remodeling. The US administration might be acknowledging and giving a hint that the rebalance is going to go on but why waste (too much) resources - in a way saying the person that is rebalanced away from is not important. If the end result can be achieved with less resources why not.

 

[nrupatunga]

U.S., Philippines to sign 10-year defense agreement amid rising tensions

The United States and the Philippines will sign a 10-year defense agreement Monday, officials said, one of the clearest signs yet of renewed American engagement in the region at a time when tensions between China and its neighbors have been rising.

The announcement — the biggest policy achievement to come out of President Obama's week-long trip to Asia — is likely to generate criticism from Chinese officials, who have made it clear they oppose a heightened U.S. presence in the area. But the pact may reassure several Asian countries embroiled in territorial disputes with China, especially in the South China Sea. It also gives the United States greater flexibility to respond to threats and natural disasters in the region.

"This is the most significant defense agreement that we have concluded with the Philippines in decades," said Evan Medeiros, the National Security Council's senior director for Asian affairs, adding that the United States wants "a constructive relationship with China" but also is determined to pursue policies based on its strategic objectives and those of its allies. "And as those threats evolve, the nature of our alliances and security partnerships will evolve as well, whether it's Japan or South Korea," Medeiros said.

At least four other countries in the region — Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam — also are feuding with China over control of parts of the South China Sea. Those territorial claims have both security and economic implications, because the country that controls those areas can access fisheries and underwater oil and gas deposits.

Rommel Banlaoi, executive director of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research, wrote in an e-mail that the defense cooperation agreement will not only increase the United States' presence in the region but also will "justify an increase of U.S. military assistance to the Philippines as a major non-NATO ally."

"The Philippines can use this agreement as a leverage against China's military and para-military presence in the Spratlys," Banlaoi wrote, referring to an archipelago of largely uninhabited islands claimed by China and several other countries.

The defense pact had been under negotiation for about eight months. U.S. officials had anticipated that it would be signed during Obama's visit, but that had not been a certainty until Sunday.

The accord does not provide for establishing U.S. bases but will entail moving American ships and planes to the Philippines more frequently as well as engaging in more training exercises with the country's forces.

Michael Green, senior vice president for Asia and Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the arrangement is not just about defending the Philippines. It is also about better dispersing American forces in the region.

"U.S. bases are too concentrated in a few places in Asia, which is not good when you're trying to build relationships, but it's also not good when there are more ballistic missiles aimed at you," Green said. "And so it's about having a lot more access across the whole region, but not bases, which are expensive and politically risky for the U.S. and for the Philippines."


'A renewal of the bond'

The new agreement amounts to a historic reversal for the Philippines, which forced the United States to withdraw from the 60,000-acre Subic Bay naval base in 1992. That break terminated an American military presence dating to when the United States wrested the Philippines from Spain in 1898.

Philippine politicians had celebrated the U.S. withdrawal. Then-Sen. Agapito Aquino, the uncle of the country's current president, called it "the dawn of our nation's birth."

Since then, however, China has become more aggressive about seeking control of land in the region, which it says wound up unfairly in foreign hands. Taylor Fravel, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted in an interview that the expulsion of U.S. forces "must be [the Philippines'] greatest geopolitical regret."

A decade ago, China occupied Mischief Reef, a part of the Kalayaan Island Group that the Philippines views as its territory; at this point China has claimed sovereignty over almost 85 percent of waters in the South China Sea. In response to the incident at Mischief Reef, the Philippine government negotiated a visiting-forces agreement with the United States that was adopted in 1999.

In the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in November, Filipinos feel even more warmly toward the U.S. armed forces, which played a critical role in the recovery effort. Alfred Romualdez, mayor of the hard-hit city of Tacloban, called the relationship "a renewal of the bond, especially for the next generation."

"Here were the Americans, who were the first ones to come, and operated the airport," he said, adding that the assistance allowed relief materials to be distributed more widely to rural areas surrounding the city.

Avoiding armed conflict

The Philippine government has confronted China on some of its moves in the South China Sea, arguing before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands that a contested shoal — called Ayungin in the Philippines and Ren'ai Reef in China — lies within its exclusive economic zone.

Ben Rhodes, deputy U.S. national security adviser for security communications, told a reporter that "this isn't an agreement designed at resolving maritime disputes, with any particular maritime dispute as a focal point of why we did this."

But he added that the closer security relationship could discourage any provocative activities that could lead to armed conflict. "The presence of the United States in the Asia Pacific has been a stabilizing force for a long time," Rhodes said.

The announcement of the pact came on the same day that Malaysia endorsed — for the first time — the idea of resolving territorial and maritime disputes in the area through international arbitration that uses the Law of the Sea Treaty as its framework.

Obama and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak highlighted in a joint statement "the importance of all parties concerned avoiding the use of force, intimidation, or coercion, and exercising self-restraint in the conduct of activities."

While the administration is also pursuing closer economic and cultural ties with Asia, enhanced security cooperation remains the most visible part of its effort to "rebalance" the relationship. The administration is on track to have a 60-40 ratio of Navy and Air Force assets in the Pacific compared with the Atlantic by the end of the decade, instead of an even split.

And at every stop on this four-country tour, Obama has emphasized the idea that the U.S. government is committed to helping its allies in the face of external threats, whether they are North Korean nuclear weapons or future moves by China to take control of islands at the center of a territorial dispute with Japan.

In an effort to defuse any possible conflict with China on the defense accord with the Philippines, senior U.S. officials privately briefed the Chinese government on their plans before Obama left Washington last week for Asia.

Rhodes noted that the details of the agreement would be worked out under the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951, which "gives us a rock-solid commitment to the security of the Philippines."

Once those details are settled, U.S. ships may be headed back to the very place they were expelled from more than two decades ago.

"There are a variety of facilities on the table," Rhodes said. "Subic Bay could be one of them."

 

[W.G.Ewald]

The U.S. military has prepared options for a muscular response to any future Chinese provocations in the South and East China seas, ranging from displays of B-2 bomber flights near China to aircraft-carrier exercises near its coastal waters, officials said.

U.S. Beefs Up Military Options for China as Obama Reassures Allies in Asia - WSJ.com

Muscular...displays...exercises... Oh, my.