China slams U.S defence policy that identifies India as a strategic partner

Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,752
Likes
48,098
Country flag
Beijing, Jan 10 (TruthDive): China on Monday slammed the United States on its new Asian-focused defense strategy. Earlier, U.S accused China for lacking openness in its military policy. China reacted to the criticism by calling it "groundless and untrustworthy."


The U.S' new defense strategy unveiled last week clarified that U.S wants to shift focus away from Iraq and Afghanistan and to concentrate on strengthening America's position in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S also called for better clarity and openness in China's military policy. The shift in strategy comes in the wake of China's growing military power.


"The tide of war is receding but the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need long after the wars of the last decade are over," Obama told a Pentagon news conference alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday.


The strategy calls for countering potential attempts by China and Iran to block U.S. capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.


The new strategy also identified India as a long-term strategic partner that can serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the Indian Ocean region. It said the U.S.will try to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula by working with allies and others in Asia to defend against North Korean provocations.


In response, China said it was committed to peaceful development and a "defensive" policy. China's strategic intent is clear, open and transparent. The accusation targeting China in the document has no basis, and is fundamentally unrealistic. Our national defense modernization serves the objective requirements of national security and development and also plays an active role in maintaining regional peace and stability. It will not pose any threat to any country," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said at a regular news conference, in response to a question from state media about whether China poses a threat to U.S. security.


"We have noted that the United States issued this guide to its defense strategy, and we will closely observe the impact that U.S.military strategic adjustment has on the Asia-Pacific region and on global security developments," ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said in his statement published on China's official military website.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
It will be Sino Indian relations that will determine the relationship equations between the US and China. China indeed is staring at the historic importance of this juncture as is India. I think there would not be any ganging up. India at best could bolster up its defence by induction of superior technology and more so by increase in numbers. India needs to fully exploit its numbers at this juncture and guard its interests in this time of transformation.

Secondly, India needs to embark upon militarisation of its CPOs, that is the second line of defence as also to bolster the capabilities of anti naxal movement.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
The titile should be "China screams in fear of US defence policy identifying India as strategic partner"
 

JAISWAL

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
1,527
Likes
1,027
i think India should take max out of this benefiting situation and get a good leverage against china and max benefit with US.
But without surrendering their indipendance policy to US. It will be tough task but if Indian beaurocrecy will do this it will be their ultimate win senario.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
The titile should be "China screams in fear of US defence policy identifying India as strategic partner"
Well China knows what happened to the foe (USSR) the last time the US did this kind of thing in Asia... They also know what happened to them...
 

tiranga

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
251
Likes
73
i think India should take max out of this benefiting situation and get a good leverage against china and max benefit with US.
But without surrendering their indipendance policy to US. It will be tough task but if Indian beaurocrecy will do this it will be their ultimate win senario.
you seriously expect such a reply from a spineless and brainless govt. like ours??
 

kickok1975

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,539
Likes
350
Well China knows what happened to the foe (USSR) the last time the US did this kind of thing in Asia... They also know what happened to them...
China is not Soviet Union. She only spends 1.5% of GDP on defense as oppose to US's 4.5%. US figures it out (She can't defeat China by spending competition) so she tries to build ally to contain China but it's almost as hard as wining spending contest because countries like India has her own interest which is not always in line with US's interest. No mattery how hard US tries, she can barely get half job done. The result of success containment is also depend on China's reaction. As long as China doesn't make foolish attempt and remains underdog, I can hardly see US win at the end
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
The US is aware that there is only one nation in Asia that can challenge the shenanigans of China and that is India. India is militarily capable and is also contiguous to China's Tibet Region.

That apart, India also has near similar strategic aims in the Region.

Therefore, it is an obvious corollary that the US finds it prudent to have India as a strategic defence partner.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
China is not Soviet Union. She only spends 1.5% of GDP on defense as oppose to US's 4.5%. US figures it out (She can't defeat China by spending competition) so she tries to build ally to contain China but it's almost as hard as wining spending contest because countries like India has her own interest which is not always in line with US's interest. No mattery how hard US tries, she can barely get half job done. The result of success containment is also depend on China's reaction. As long as China doesn't make foolish attempt and remains underdog, I can hardly see US win at the end
China's declared defence budget is as per Reuters Mar 2011 report

China will beef up its military budget by 12.7 percent this year, the government said on Friday, a return to double-digit spending increases that will stir regional unease.
The country's growing military clout has coincided with a more assertive diplomatic tone, evident in spats last year with Japan and Southeast Asia over disputed islands, and in rows with Washington over trade, the yuan currency and human rights.

Chinese parliamentary spokesman Li Zhaoxing said the defense budget would be 601.1 billion yuan ($91.5 billion) in 2011, from 532.1 billion yuan last year. The budget went up by just 7.5 percent in 2010, after a long period of double-digit hikes.

Many experts believe China's actual spending on the 2.3 million-strong People's Liberation Army (PLA) is far higher than what the government reports.

"It's widely accepted that these figures bear only a marginal relationship with the actual overall spending. Overall, it means the Chinese are saying we are going to (boost) our defense budget, whatever the real numbers are," said Dean Cheng, a China security expert at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

China, now the world's second-largest economy, often points out that its defense spending pales in comparison with the United States and that its military upgrades are for defensive purposes.
The Pentagon last month rolled out a record base budget for fiscal year 2012 of $553 billion, up $22 billion from the level enacted for 2010.

But China has made some eye-catching moves in recent months, none more so than conducting its first test flight of a stealth fighter jet when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was visiting Beijing in January.

China could also launch its first aircraft carrier this year, according to Chinese military and political sources, a year earlier than U.S. military analysts had expected.

"The PLA is an important and powerful force in decision-making and there is obviously a desire to signal to the Chinese public and Chinese nationalists that China is going to continue to get stronger," said Rory Medcalf of Australian think tank the Lowy Institute.

That signal may prompt greater wariness from neighbors.

Japan said on Thursday it scrambled military jets this week after Chinese naval planes flew near disputed islands in the East China Sea, although the Chinese did not enter Japan's airspace.

The Philippines also demanded an explanation from China over an incident on Wednesday in a disputed area in the South China Sea, where it says two Chinese patrol boats threatened to ram a survey ship.

MILITARY BUILD-UP

Indeed, other nations are upgrading their forces in response to China's build-up.

India increased annual defense spending by about 11.6 percent this week and is shopping for advanced fighter jets, transport aircraft, surveillance helicopters and submarines.

Some officials in Taiwan are especially alarmed. China has around 1,400 missiles aimed at the island, according to the Taipei government. China has vowed to bring the democratically ruled island under mainland rule, by force if necessary.

"China's military power is now growing quickly," said Lin Yu-Fang, a member of the Taiwan parliament's defense committee in response to the Chinese budget number. "The United States should help us turn the situation around, and we hope European countries will also sell us advanced weapons."

Chinese parliament spokesman Li said the military spending rise was justified. China posed no threat to anyone, he added.

"China's defense spending is relatively low by world standards," he said. "China has always paid attention to restraining defense spending."

Andy Gilholm, senior China analyst for risk consultancy Control Risks, said China was not trying to rival U.S. global power projection but wanted to make it harder for Washington to impose its might in what China considers its own "backyard."

"The key issue for the U.S. and its regional allies is not the gap in spending or overall capabilities, but the extent to which China could potentially threaten or constrain U.S. ability to use its military dominance to help support its goals in the region," Gilholm said.

China's loud, renewed claims to a vast swathe of waters and mostly uninhabited islets in the South China Sea, along with the expansion of its military presence there, rattled Southeast Asian nations in 2010.

Relations between China and Japan also chilled last year when Japan detained the Chinese skipper of a boat that crashed into its ships near disputed isles in the East China Sea, the site of vast potential gas and oil reserves.

Still, a retired Chinese military officer, Xu Guangyu, said the spending rise was needed to cope with inflation, which was eating into paychecks and equipment outlays.

"In the next two years the wages of some military personnel will have to rise relatively quickly, because inflation is quite high," said Xu.

"Military equipment, uniforms and logistics are all feeling the pressure of price rises."

China defense budget to stir regional disquiet | Reuters
And this is a dated report (Fri Mar 4, 2011).

What it is currently can only be a guesstimate.

It maybe note that every March, as part of its annual state budget, China releases a single overall figure for national military expenditures.


In 2010, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength estimated the actual 2009 Chinese military spending at US$150 billion.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates that the military spending of the People's Republic of China for 2009 was US$100 billion, higher than the official budget, but lower than the US DoD estimate. The last year that many international institutes provided estimates of Chinese military spending in comparable terms was 2003. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, SIPRI, RAND, the CIA and the DIA estimated the budget to be between US$30–65 billion. In terms of purchasing power parity, or the relative purchasing strength of the expenditure, the SIPRI estimate was as high as US$140 billion. The Chinese government's published budget at that time was less than US$25 billion.


A RAND Corporation study estimates the People's Republic of China's defense spending to be higher than the official number but lower than United States Department of Defense calculations. The defense spending of the People's Republic of China is estimated to be between 2.3-2.8% of China's GDP. This is 40-70% higher than official figures, but substantially lower than previous outside estimates.


 
Last edited:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
What about SEATO? How much did it achieve its objectives?

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international organization for collective defense inSoutheast Asia created by the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, or Manila Pact, signed in September 1954 in Manila, Philippines. The formal institution of SEATO was established on 19 February 1955 at a meeting of treaty partners in Bangkok, Thailand.[SUP][1][/SUP] The organization's headquarters were also located in Bangkok.

SEATO was created by the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, or Manila Pact, signed on 8 September 1954 in Manila,[SUP][2][/SUP] as part of the American Truman Doctrine of creating anti-communist bilateral and collective defense treaties.[SUP][3][/SUP] These treaties and agreements were intended to create alliances that would contain communist powers (Communist China, in SEATO's case).[SUP][4][/SUP] This policy was considered to have been largely developed by American diplomat and Soviet expert George F. Kennan. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (1953–1959) was the primary force behind the creation of SEATO, which expanded the concept of anti-communist collective defense to Southeast Asia.[SUP][2]

[/SUP]
SEATO was planned to be a Southeast Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),[SUP][5][/SUP] in which the military forces of each member would be coordinated to provide for the collective defense of the members' country. Organizationally, SEATO was headed by the Secretary General, whose office was created in 1957 at a meeting in Canberra,[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] with a council of representatives from member nations and an international staff. Also present were committees for economics, security, and information.[SUP][7][/SUP]

SEATO's members included Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan (including East Pakistan, now Bangladesh), the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[SUP][11][/SUP] The membership reflected a mid-1950s combination of anti-communist Western nations and such nations in Southeast Asia. The United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, the latter of which joined after the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty by a 82–1 vote,[SUP][13][/SUP] represented the strongest Western powers.[SUP][14[/SUP]
[SUP]]

I came across an interesting analysis that the US makes so much noise in the shift to Pacific only to convince concerned states of the menace from China so that they would buy more American arms for fueling its own recovery. In the 'off-shore balancing' game the US plays others against China's rise ashore while it
stays off shore. [/SUP]
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
The threat perception in Asia when SEATO was formed was different from the Treat Perception as is now.

Further, it was a US controlled pact that was guided by the US policies.

The current scenario indicates that there are players who wish to maintain their independence in policy, but have a common strategic aim.

The strategic aim would bind the loose partnerships as a whole. A question of mutual necessity not dictated by the aims of one nation, and instead by a consensus.

SEATO was ideology based and which in actuality did not affect the Asiatic members. It was basically to get financial and military freebies and address the same towards their local adversaries, as also, to get the backing of the Big 4 in the UN when disputes arose.

Now, it is a question of safeguarding territorial integrity and sovereignty.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I came across an interesting analysis that the US makes so much noise in the shift to Pacific only to convince concerned states of the menace from China so that they would buy more American arms for fueling its own recovery. In the 'off-shore balancing' game the US plays others against China's rise ashore while it
stays off shore.
More than the US, it is China's recently aggressive actions and hegemonic pursuits that has got nations to realise that they have to be armed and ready.

It is no longer a question of hype. It has become a reality!

It is not that one has to buy US weapons and weapons platform alone.

Nations are buying the same from the world market including from new comers like Brazil!
 

debasree

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
819
Likes
86
Country flag
China is not Soviet Union. She only spends 1.5% of GDP on defense as oppose to US's 4.5%. US figures it out (She can't defeat China by spending competition) so she tries to build ally to contain China but it's almost as hard as wining spending contest because countries like India has her own interest which is not always in line with US's interest. No mattery how hard US tries, she can barely get half job done. The result of success containment is also depend on China's reaction. As long as China doesn't make foolish attempt and remains underdog, I can hardly see US win at the end
its in official report but unofficially u spend 3 to 4 times the original spending so chill out
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Will China scream in fear of US defence policy identifying India as "strategic partner"?? At most the US will sell better equipment or technology to India. Or As if being backed by the US India may up its ante in dealing with China as it feels China may be caved in when in a plight. So much for the 'strategic partnership' (or simply put a marriage of convenience ?)

China will stay cool in face of such old tricks
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
India needs China to balance the big powers poking their nose in our region.
Even if China is an evil, it is a necessary evil, which needs to be contained but must not be destabilized.

Once China is defeated, west will be all over Asia, once again, and we will not be spared either. We know well what USA does to it's seasonal friends, after the honeymoon period is over.
 

Payeng

Daku Mongol Singh
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,522
Likes
777
India needs China to balance the big powers poking their nose in our region.
Even if China is an evil, it is a necessary evil, which needs to be contained but must not be destabilized.

Once China is defeated, west will be all over Asia, once again, and we will not be spared either. We know well what USA does to it's seasonal friends, after the honeymoon period is over.
++1 for amitkriit.
 

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
292
India needs China to balance the big powers poking their nose in our region.
Even if China is an evil, it is a necessary evil, which needs to be contained but must not be destabilized.

Once China is defeated, west will be all over Asia, once again, and we will not be spared either. We know well what USA does to it's seasonal friends, after the honeymoon period is over.
Do you mean China or CCP?:rofl:
 

Payeng

Daku Mongol Singh
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,522
Likes
777
^^ May be he should have termed as PRC because the whole China is not PRC :D
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
China's slamming the US is not surprising or odd.

The manner in which the US is squeezing China from all sides, is adequate to raise the shrill squeal!
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top