The Rise of China : Strategic Implications.

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


  • Total voters
    345

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
The biggest beneficiaries of the rise of China and India would be these two countries themselves. If both see themselves as the France and Germany of Asia and forge a strategic relationship to jointly lead Asia, that would be the end of Western dominance of world affairs and the beginning of a new Golden Age of Asian prosperity. The need of the hour is for China and India to settle the boundary question as soon as possible by letting each other hold on to territory it is already in possession of. Such a deal would be the equivalent of the India-US nuclear deal in terms of the boost it will give to relations with China.

These countries are the oldest civilizations in the world and were once seen as formidable entities completely different and in many ways superior to Western civilization. Together, they account for over 40% of humanity. An FTA between China and India on the lines of NAFTA would make the EU and North America totally irrelevant. I hope the leaders of both countries have the wisdom to co-operate and work together to secure the future of human race.

Do our Chinese members think likewise? @no smoking @t_co @J20! @amoy @kickok1975 @badguy2000
I agree. A couple things come to mind, in no particular order:

1. The only Indian leader who can commit to such a deal without being viewed as selling out the country would be Narendra Modi.
2. Whether he could actually deliver the votes in what is almost certain hostility from the UPA is an open question.
3. India and China have other strategic issues to resolve alongside such an FTA. Would an FTA be conducted in isolation from such issues or in conjunction with them?
3a. The first strategic issue is Pakistan. A Sino-Indian FTA would be viewed in Islamabad as an unfriendly act, one that economically isolates it. Do China and India cut Pakistan into the FTA as well, or, if not, how do China and India assuage Pakistan's concerns?
3b. Would an FTA include a guarantee by India to protect China's shipping lanes in the IOR? This would obviate China's need for a string of pearls.
4. The United States would do everything in its power to forestall such a move, possibly by throwing a clause in the TPP that forces India to choose between the US-Japan markets and the Chinese one.
5. China and India need to resolve their border issues before starting any deep FTAs; both sides should formalize the LAC as a border, and ratify treaties that limit the quantity and quality of troops they can station on the border.
6. On a scale this large, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile and Sri Lanka become minor issues, to be resolved at a later date.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
The biggest beneficiaries of the rise of China and India would be these two countries themselves. If both see themselves as the France and Germany of Asia and forge a strategic relationship to jointly lead Asia, that would be the end of Western dominance of world affairs and the beginning of a new Golden Age of Asian prosperity. The need of the hour is for China and India to settle the boundary question as soon as possible by letting each other hold on to territory it is already in possession of. Such a deal would be the equivalent of the India-US nuclear deal in terms of the boost it will give to relations with China.

These countries are the oldest civilizations in the world and were once seen as formidable entities completely different and in many ways superior to Western civilization. Together, they account for over 40% of humanity. An FTA between China and India on the lines of NAFTA would make the EU and North America totally irrelevant. I hope the leaders of both countries have the wisdom to co-operate and work together to secure the future of human race.

Do our Chinese members think likewise? @no smoking @t_co @J20! @amoy @kickok1975 @badguy2000
with all due respect Sir,
this idea is as old as the Independence of modern india ...
it goes way back to the 1950's

Our Nehru was one of the first to propose this idea -
along with his ideas of a non-aligned movement as the overall encompassing framework
the china India cooperation was a subset of that grand design for peace and goodwill among all of us

Nehru proposed it to china
he succeeded in convincing himself and a bunch of others on the indian side
they all agreed wholeheartedly that it was a great idea !

china told him what they though of his ideas in september 1962

and now you are re-proposing the idea ?
sure they will play along with it ....for a while, even years :-
then - !!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
I agree. A couple things come to mind, in no particular order:

1. The only Indian leader who can commit to such a deal without being viewed as selling out the country would be Narendra Modi.
2. Whether he could actually deliver the votes in what is almost certain hostility from the UPA is an open question.
3. India and China have other strategic issues to resolve alongside such an FTA. Would an FTA be conducted in isolation from such issues or in conjunction with them?
3a. The first strategic issue is Pakistan. A Sino-Indian FTA would be viewed in Islamabad as an unfriendly act, one that economically isolates it. Do China and India cut Pakistan into the FTA as well, or, if not, how do China and India assuage Pakistan's concerns?
3b. Would an FTA include a guarantee by India to protect China's shipping lanes in the IOR? This would obviate China's need for a string of pearls.
4. The United States would do everything in its power to forestall such a move, possibly by throwing a clause in the TPP that forces India to choose between the US-Japan markets and the Chinese one.
5. China and India need to resolve their border issues before starting any deep FTAs; both sides should formalize the LAC as a border, and ratify treaties that limit the quantity and quality of troops they can station on the border.
6. On a scale this large, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile and Sri Lanka become minor issues, to be resolved at a later date.
I personally think that Modi, however popular in the media right now, is primarily a preferred leader of sections of the middle class, which fortunately or unfortunately does not comprise a formidable enough voting block so as to override the primary support base of the Congress/UPA which is the 800 million strong rural poor. Regardless of which party comes to power, both the Congress and BJP see betterment of relations with China as one of the top foreign policy priorities for India. The BJP can be more proactive about this under Modi though, so you may be right on that count.

3a. Pakistan uses its relationship with both China and the US as an insurance policy to launch terrorist attacks against India. If Pakistan sees that India and China are actively engaged in negotiating an FTA, the Islamic nutjobs there, especially in the army, may finally come to realize that they cannot continue to have a policy of active hostility against India. China's role will be very important here-it will have to convince Pakistan that its future lies in economic integration with India and that it must get out if its mentality of a 1000 year war against the "infidel Hindus". Personally I am very pessimistic that Pakistan will change course. The most powerful player within Pakistan is the Army, whose vested interest lies in constant conflict with India.

3b. I think this takes us to a larger discussion of what China and India consider to be their core interests. Here is a partial list:

China:

Tibet, Land connection with Xinjiang (through Aksai Chin)
Security of shipping lanes in IOR
East Asia as primary sphere of influence

India:

Kashmir/Cross-border terrorism from Pakistan
Membership of UNSC
South Asia as primary sphere of influence

I think India can accommodate, or has already accommodated Chinese concerns on Tibet by acknowledging it as an integral part of China. The refuge given to the Dalai Lama is merely symbolic, due to India's civilizational ties with Tibetan Buddhism. India already restricts political activities of the Tibetan refugees. If China does not wish to acknowledge Kashmir as part of India (as seen from the stapled visa row), will it be at least willing to take a neutral stand on the issue while pushing its ally Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism? This will be seen as a very important test in India of any Indo-Chinese strategic thaw. Note that in the case of the US too, whether it was the Kargil attack in 1999, the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001 or the terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008, they have been either neutral or supported Indian efforts against Pakistan backed terrorism.

If China can manage to assuage India's security concerns (Pakistan/terrorism), then this will build strategic trust between the two countries. India would not feel the need to build up offensive capabilities against the Pak/China nexus including targeting China's IOR shipping. India might also agree to take a backseat in the process of choosing the new Dalai Lama.

Finally, both China and India will need to respect each other's spheres of influence. India will not meddle in China's disputes with its neighbours in East Asia and the South China sea, and China will likewise stop using Pakistan as a pawn to balance India and not meddle in South Asia.

4. Neither China nor India are currently negotiating partners of the TPP. And in all honesty, an Indo-China FTA and further down the road an Asian economic community will make the TPP and other US led initiatives quite irrelevant. Once that happens, it will be the US and Europe who will stumble over each other trying to get a slice of the Asian pie, and it will be quite easy to play them off against each other like they do to the rest of the world now.

5. Agreed. That is the #1 confidence building measure that will lead to these greater understandings down the road.

6. Also agreed.
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
with all due respect Sir,
this idea is as old as the Independence of modern india ...
it goes way back to the 1950's

Our Nehru was one of the first to propose this idea -
along with his ideas of a non-aligned movement as the overall encompassing framework
the china India cooperation was a subset of that grand design for peace and goodwill among all of us

Nehru proposed it to china
he succeeded in convincing himself and a bunch of others on the indian side
they all agreed wholeheartedly that it was a great idea !

china told him what they though of his ideas in september 1962

and now you are re-proposing the idea ?
sure they will play along with it ....for a while, even years :-
then - !!!
Nehru refused to concede an inch of what he considered to be "Indian territory" to the Chinese. That was the mistake that lead to 1962. His attitude was understandable, India had already lost substantial chunks of territory during partition and many analysts in the 1950's predicted that India would soon disintegrate under the weight of its own diversity and heterogeneity. China too was finally stable and unified after many decades and were in no mood to part with an inch of what they considered to be "Chinese territory". In the lead up to the war, the Chinese did offer many times to let India keep all of NEFA/AP in return for Aksai Chin which they needed to connect with Xinjiang. Nehru refused to negotiate, and this led to the war.

You might want to read the book, "Himalayan Blunder", by Brig. J P Dalvi, who was himself taken as a PoW by the Chinese. It is very revealing and challenges the popular perception of the Chinese being the aggressor in that war.
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
Nehru refused to concede an inch of what he considered to be "Indian territory" to the Chinese. That was the mistake that lead to 1962. His attitude was understandable, India had already lost substantial chunks of territory during partition and many analysts in the 1950's predicted that India would soon disintegrate under the weight of its own diversity and heterogeneity. China too was finally stable and unified after many decades and were in no mood to part with an inch of what they considered to be "Chinese territory". In the lead up to the war, the Chinese did offer many times to let India keep all of NEFA/AP in return for Aksai Chin which they needed to connect with Xinjiang. Nehru refused to negotiate, and this led to the war.

You might want to read the book, "Himalayan Blunder", by Brig. J P Dalvi, who was himself taken as a PoW by the Chinese. It is very revealing and challenges the popular perception of the Chinese being the aggressor in that war.
while you have written about nehru, you omitted commenting about
the similarity of your india-china cooperation project

you said nehru failed to "negotiate"

recently the chinese have been asserting themselves in arunachal

so your solution - according to what you have written, should be
now to "negotiate" with china on arunachal .... in order to work together with them ? :taunt1:
yeah sure .....hindi-chinni bai bhai !
 
Last edited:

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
The biggest beneficiaries of the rise of China and India would be these two countries themselves. If both see themselves as the France and Germany of Asia and forge a strategic relationship to jointly lead Asia, that would be the end of Western dominance of world affairs and the beginning of a new Golden Age of Asian prosperity. The need of the hour is for China and India to settle the boundary question as soon as possible by letting each other hold on to territory it is already in possession of. Such a deal would be the equivalent of the India-US nuclear deal in terms of the boost it will give to relations with China.

These countries are the oldest civilizations in the world and were once seen as formidable entities completely different and in many ways superior to Western civilization. Together, they account for over 40% of humanity. An FTA between China and India on the lines of NAFTA would make the EU and North America totally irrelevant. I hope the leaders of both countries have the wisdom to co-operate and work together to secure the future of human race.

Do our Chinese members think likewise? @no smoking @t_co @J20! @amoy @kickok1975 @badguy2000
I think the economic relations of East Asia are a significant precedent for an Indo-Sino economic realationship. Sino-Japanese and ROK-Japanese trade relations in particular. But for the sake of being brief, I'll stick to Japan-China trade.

Despite the territorial disputes that re-awaked in 2010, Sino-Japanese economic relations offer a lesson in economic relations independent of geopolitical relations.

Japan and China embarked on a "cold-politics" policy that basically shelved or put territorial disputes on the back burner to allow economic integration and mutual prosperity. Today, China is Japan's largest trading partner, providing a market for over $140 billion dolars in Japanese goods; despite the ongoing tensions (for refference, billateral trade between India and China stands at a little over $70 billion).

Where I think a potential India-China trade agreement could improve over th Japanese-Chinese economic relationship would be continuously working towards a freeze on the undemarcated disputed border simultaneously with improving trade ties, instead of completely shelving the dispute. That alone would allay much of the border dispute tension. The recent agreement could serve as a foundation for building a lasting agreement over the entire dispute.

So yes, I do agree with you. Economic coorperation, as two developing countries with similar goals WRT poverty alleviation, could boost both economies greatly in many industries as well as lead to incredible numbers of people( in the 100's of millions here) enjoying a better standard of living.

If China could build an enormous trade relationship with its former imperial occupiers, much loathed by a large part of the populace(similar to the animosity many Indians have for China), I very much doubt it couldn't build a similar relationship with India as almost a majority of Chinese don't know the specifics of the 1962 war, let alone harbour any animosity towards India.

All it would take would be the political will to push a Free Trade Agreement through. A China-ASEAN F.T.A. is already in effect despite the South China Sea issue, I don't see why an India-China F.T.A. should be impossible barring public opposition on the Indian side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
exactly , or at least , something similar ....

strategic implication is that the usa has to get together , and lead, a new coalition of forces
just like it did to bring down saddam hussein !

of course the scale and size of this new coalition of forces will be different ,
but the principle would remain the same !
so while there will be some changes and uncertainties therein due to the larger scale of things,
much of the foundation we would already have been used to - as that remains the same !
namely, to bring down the evil forces which oppose democracy

it's up to the usa to decide the timing
when they feel it is appropriate to tackle the dragon question
meanwhile it seems the usa is playing around
but it could be for some logical reason ?
List of the largest trading partners of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please look through that page, and pay particular attention to the list of "Countries & regions which China is the largest trading partner of"; a list mind you that includes the US, Japan, both Koreas, India, Australia etc. All the countries the US would need to form a hypothetical coalition with. Even the countries not on that list have China as their number 1 or no.2 trading partner.

Even the US of A would have a hard time organising a coalition to even blockade China, let alone invade it like they did Iraq. What you're basically advocating is collective economic suicide by the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world.

Being the second largest economy isn't just a title.
 
Last edited:

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
China's Push Into 'America's Backyard'
The United States has been quite vocal about its "pivot to Asia," but as Washington seeks to further its influence in the Asia-Pacific, China has been quietly upping its own importance to Central and Latin America. Now China is making a push to further its engagement with countries in the Western Hemisphere, as evidenced by the announcement of a new dialogue mechanism. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which met in Cuba from January 28 to 29, adopted a statement announcing the establishment of a China-CELAC Forum.

China has become the second largest trading partner for Latin America–growth driven in part by China's demand for natural resources. Central and Latin American countries are also attractive as markets for Chinese goods, as well as offering the potential for cooperation on the infrastructure projects Chinese construction companies so often undertake around the globe. In 2012, China's bilateral trade with Latin America as a region increased over 8 percent to $261 billion.

This below point is important
Partnering with China seems to be CELAC's way of hedging against U.S. dominance in the region — just as some states in the Asia-Pacific are edging closer to the U.S. in a bid against growing Chinese power.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Where public opinion of U.S. > China (green). Where public opinion of China > U.S. (red). According to Pew.



Whats this??? Turkey, a nato ally likes china more than usa??:confused::shocked:

Alos surprised to see Argentina, netherlands(??) on the china camp :shocked: :shocked:
 

sunny_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
197
Likes
23
Where public opinion of U.S. > China (green). Where public opinion of China > U.S. (red). According to Pew.



Whats this??? Turkey, a nato ally likes china more than usa??:confused::shocked:

Alos surprised to see Argentina, netherlands(??) on the china camp :shocked: :shocked:

Turkey not surprised, why not other Gulf nations are in red, the only surprise for me, my own experience....

and Argentina, yes its a surprise...... they won't have pictures of OBL in small small shops like how we see in Pakistan, including in whole gulf region? :ranger:
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Turkey not surprised, why not other Gulf nations are in red, the only surprise for me, my own experience....

and Argentina, yes its a surprise...... they won't have pictures of OBL in small small shops like how we see in Pakistan, including in whole gulf region? :ranger:
GCC royals heavliy depend on west for survival. But why weren't you surprised about turkey?? Share your thoughts/experinces.
 

sunny_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
197
Likes
23
GCC royals heavliy depend on west for survival. But why weren't you surprised about turkey?? Share your thoughts/experinces.

look, while living in western nations, you live with an idea that by saying few wrong about US, you may be recognized as good among the Muslims. and the same is true while talking with british/aussie etc, say few wrong about Muslims and become good :ranger:

a slave is a slave, whether Saudi, Turkey or any other country of that area, and rest of that region always have war threats, whether Syria, Iran or someone else.....

just have a look on the common environment, all the migrants of this region try hard to come to western nations and within just 6-7 months, they all start visiting Mosques, discussing different wars by US :ranger:

few news like as below itself tell us the story :thumb:

Uncontrolled Muslim influx a threat :ranger:

A FEW weeks ago in London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that 75 per cent of the terrorist plots aimed at Britain originated in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. Some 800,000 Pakistanis live in Britain. :ranger:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

and in Australia we also get the news like as below :rofl:

Aboriginal people represent only 3% of the total population, yet more than 28% of Australia's prison population are Aboriginal.

Aboriginal prison rates - Creative Spirits

Aboriginal protesters burn Australian flag outside Parliament...

Julia Gillard's shoe held to ransom by Aboriginal Mail Online
"What does Islam stand for? Islam offers a faith untainted by colonialism and racism. It is a liberating religion," says Davis. "Though the Bible said you shalt not kill, they killed, thou shall not rape, they raped our women, thou shalt not steal, they stole our land. Islam at its essence is pure. My forefathers had no army and no guns and lived in Aboriginal townships and camps. That's the difference between the Muslim and Christian faiths: one is for the oppressed and one's for the oppressor, one's for the coloniser and one for the colonised."
A new faith for Kooris - National - smh.com.au :laugh:

=>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sunny_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
197
Likes
23
.
the most funny thing i saw in aboriginals there is the underlined statement. they generally think of themselves 'king' of Australia, and hence most fo them just drink on Welfare money and sit on the side of road :rofl:

"What does Islam stand for? Islam offers a faith untainted by colonialism and racism. It is a liberating religion," says Davis. "Though the Bible said you shalt not kill, they killed, thou shall not rape, they raped our women, thou shalt not steal, they stole our land.:rofl: Islam at its essence is pure. My forefathers had no army and no guns and lived in Aboriginal townships and camps[/B]. That's the difference between the Muslim and Christian faiths: one is for the oppressed and one's for the oppressor, one's for the coloniser and one for the colonised."
A new faith for Kooris - National - smh.com.au :laugh:
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Five Ways China Spies
Every time a fleeing or exiled Chinese official or public intellectual issues a warning about Chinese spies, the statements attain an immediate significance. When ousted Beijing University professor and Cato Institute visiting fellow Xia Yeliang made such remarks on February 27, press the world over picked up his remarks. Dr. Xia said "Every year among those top universities there are some visiting scholars, and among them I can definitely say there are some people who are actually spies"¦They don't do any research—probably they just do some surveys for their boss."

One of the reasons such remarks garner attention is that a mystique surrounds Chinese intelligence. The Chinese have not faced the same exposure that the Russians faced when Westerners helped defectors like Oleg Gordievsky, Vasili Mitrokhin, and Sergei Tretyakov write about the Soviet KGB and its successors. The shroud of mystery has meant Western observers treat Chinese intelligence as a kind of inscrutable beast, operating in fundamentally different ways than their Western and Russian counterparts. However, security services worldwide have uncovered a wide-ranging and familiar set of operational methods used by Chinese intelligence.

One of the reasons Chinese intelligence operations do not seem to make sense to observers is that they mistake intelligence for the theft of secrets. Intelligence does not mean the acquisition of "classified" or "secret" information. Intelligence is the acquisition and processing of information that assists in formulating policy and guiding action. Classification has nothing to do with it; Beijing's concerns do. China concerns in the United States go beyond U.S. policy, including overseas Chinese populations, democracy activists, counterintelligence, and scientific expertise. And, as will become clear below, the Chinese seem to be very comfortable with merely secondhand access to sensitive information.

Here are five important and unmistakably familiar ways that China collects foreign intelligence.

1. Diplomats, Defense Attachés, and Journalists

Whoever said China spies in a fundamentally different way than others in the spy business got it wrong. Concealing spies within the embassy staff—the bread-and-butter of international espionage—has been and continues to be a hallmark of Chinese intelligence operations. In the past, these officially- or quasi-officially covered intelligence officers have lain low, focusing on eliciting information from interesting contacts rather than trying to recruit them. But that appears to have changed in recent years.

A little over three years ago, Sweden convicted a Uighur refugee, Baibur Maihesuti, from China of spying on other refugees inside and outside the country. His Chinese case officers were a journalist and diplomat, who paid him in exchange for telephone numbers, travel patterns, and other personal information about his fellow Uighurs. Around the same time, German officials also expressed concern that Chinese intelligence officers were operating more aggressively out of their diplomatic facilities. Although it might seem odd to a Western audience for a journalist to be associated with an embassy, Chinese journalists are state employees, giving them no deniability if they are caught in the middle of an operation.

2. Seeding Operations

Chinese intelligence services have been trying to feed intelligence officers and recruited agents into the adversary's organizations since the 1920s. In fact, China's first espionage heroes were the so-called "Three Heroes of the Dragon's Lair," who infiltrated the Kuomintang's intelligence apparatus. When a senior Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official defected, these three officers sounded the warning that allowed the CCP to survive. While communist intelligence employed this method with success throughout the Chinese Civil War, seeding emerged only more recently in operations against the United States.

The first, and so far, only case to reach a U.S. courtroom was Glenn Duffie Shriver, who Chinese intelligence recruited in 2004 while he was in Shanghai. In exchange for $70,000, Shriver made several attempts to join the State Department and then the CIA's National Clandestine Service. CIA's background check, however, alerted security officials that something was not quite right, and further investigation revealed the connection to Chinese intelligence.

Shriver however probably was not the first such Chinese effort against the United States. In 1997, then-FBI counterintelligence chief Harry Godfrey III warned that "We have seen cases where [Chinese intelligence] have encouraged people to apply to the CIA, the FBI, and Naval Investigative Service, and other Defense agencies."

3. Academics and Scholars

It is a well-known fact that China's intelligence apparatus manages several think tanks to do research and analysis as well as consult with foreign officials and scholars. The most famous and biggest are the Ministry of State Security-run China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) and military intelligence-affiliated China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS) that each have dozens of researchers. The current MSS chief, Geng Huichang, built his career as a researcher at CICIR, rising to be its president in the early 1990s. And the CIISS president has always been a senior member of military intelligence—most often the serving Deputy Chief of Staff with the foreign-affairs portfolio or his immediate predecessor—currently General Sun Jianguo. Their academic credentials makes them a valuable way to reach out to retired foreign officials and nongovernment policy analysts to get information on other countries by hosting conferences, Track II dialogues, and academic delegations. This kind of collection is nothing too nefarious, but it does get China access to a lot of gossip, the thinking of future officials, and other nonpublic, if still unclassified information. For the most part, these "spies" are exactly who they say they are: Chinese intelligence officers with a scholarly job description.

But Chinese intelligence services also use academic and policy research institutions to hide clandestine operations. Research offers a useful excuse to commission research, hide suspicious travel, and engage a wide variety of officials. Scholars are naturally curious and are expected to ask questions. For example, Japanese police investigated an intelligence officer based in the Chinese embassy's economics section in Tokyo in the late 2000s. Prior to working at the embassy, the military intelligence officer worked at the China Academy of Social Sciences, one of China's most prominent think tanks. Against the United States, one of the intelligence officers believed to be involved in handling convicted spy, Chi Mak, worked as a researcher at a university in Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong Province.

4. Local Government Offices

Inside China, intelligence officials need little in the way of cover and sometimes having the overt power of the government comes in handy when confronting potential agents. A former security official in Tianjin, Hao Fengjun, told Taiwanese press that China's intelligence services use local government credentials—often linked only to a numbered but unnamed office—to approach businessmen and officials when they find themselves on the other side of the law. For example, the MSS periodically sweeps brothels and karaoke parlors to pick up businessmen, especially those from Taiwan, and these "local government officials" would offer assistance and a way out through espionage. At other times, these "officials" threaten to close down Taiwanese businesses and confiscate the investment unless the businessmen agree to assist Chinese intelligence. Although only a few cases of such blackmail are known—most notably a Japanese code clerk in Shanghai—this offer of assistance to fix someone's troubles before sending them home to spy appears to be China's routine approach to spying on Taiwan.

5. Businesspeople at Home and Abroad

According to a widely cited Hong Kong press article, Chinese military intelligence employs "commercial cadres" who operate like case officers despite not being official government employees. The businesspersons have government credentials and help intelligence officials recruit foreigners that might possess valuable information. One such person may have introduced Kuo Tai-shen, a naturalized U.S. citizen and Louisiana-based businessman arrested in 2008 for spying, to a Chinese intelligence official with the Guangzhou Friendship Association that promoted U.S.-China business ties. After being recruited himself, Kuo then recruited two U.S. Defense Department officials, Gregg Bergersen and James Fondren, to provide him sensitive defense information related U.S. concerns in the Asia-Pacific.

China also hides intelligence officers overseas using commercial cover—sometimes allowing them to emigrate and gain legitimate foreign documentation. Last year, Taiwanese counterintelligence (with U.S. assistance) uncovered a high-level penetration in Taiwan's military. A Chinese intelligence officer living as an Australian businesswoman in Thailand handled General Lo Hsien-che—director of army telecommunications and electronic information at the time of his arrest—while he posted in Thailand as a military attaché in the early 2000s. She and/or another Chinese intelligence officer reportedly lured Lo into a situation where he could be blackmailed and then offered to pay him thousands of dollars in exchange for cooperating with Chinese intelligence.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Saudi Arabia, China's 'Good Friend'
Saudi Arabia's Defense Minister and Crown Prince, Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, is in Beijing from March 13 to 16 for meetings with Chinese leaders. On Thursday, he was given a warm welcome by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who called Saudi Arabia "China's good friend, brother and partner in the Middle East and Gulf region." According to Xinhua, Xi and Salman pledged "to strengthen [the] strategic partnership" between China and Saudi Arabia.

China and Saudi Arabia formed diplomatic relations rather late, in 1990. However, since then ties have expanded rapidly as China's reliance on foreign oil has grown. In the fall of 2013, China officially overtook the United States as the largest net importer of oil. In particular, China is expected to soon pass the U.S. as the largest importer of oil from OPEC, resulting in more reliance on the OPEC nations—including Saudi Arabia. As of 2013, Saudi Arabia was China's largest supplier of crude oil, although China has also recently been trying to diversify its oil suppliers.

But while energy cooperation remains a bulwark of China-Saudi Arabia relations, it's clear that both countries are seeking to expand their ties. Xi Jinping told Salman, "Both sides should take energy cooperation as a pillar and expand partnership in aerospace and new energy to forge closer ties." He also invited Saudi Arabia to join the Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road, China's two ambitious, westward-looking economic initiatives that seek to link Xinjiang province to the Gulf states via Central Asia.

Xi also promised to back Saudi Arabia in another way, by "expressing China's support to Saudi Arabia for choosing a development path that suits its own conditions." Saudi Arabia's historic ties with the United States have frayed somewhat in recent years, partially due to the U.S. response to the Arab Spring. As a monarchy, Saudi Arabia's government remains opposed to such populist movements and was disquieted by the U.S. asking longtime ally, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, to step aside. Saudi Arabia has banned protests within its borders and even been accused of using deadly force against demonstrators. Riyadh has also sent troops to neighboring Bahrain to help quell demonstrations there, to the dismay of U.S. officials. Xi Jinping's comments offer a veiled reference to the fact that China would never criticize Riyadh for such actions.

For his part, Salman said that "Saudi Arabia is ready to enhance cooperation with China to protect peace, security and stability in the region." According to a statement from the Saudi Press Agency, Salman in particular asked for China to play a role in helping "the Palestinian cause" and in cooperating to reach a solution to the Syria crisis. "We look forward to China as an international magnate with a great political and economic weight to play a prominent role in achieving peace and security in the region," Salman said.

Increased China-Saudi Arabia cooperation makes sense for both Beijing and Riyadh. As China's dependence on foreign oil grows, Beijing will need to ensure good relations with the powerful oil countries in the Middle East—and Saudi Arabia is the most important of those. Further, a good relationship with Saudi Arabia would allow China not just to secure oil imports from Riyadh, but to create a partnership dedicated to "stabilizing" the region, ideally keeping all Middle Eastern oil flowing smoothly.

Meanwhile, Riyadh has been making numerous outreaches to its east, including signing defense cooperation agreements this year with both India and Indonesia. There have even been reports that Saudi Arabia is interested in purchasing Pakistani-Chinese produced fighter jets, which would represent a large step away from reliance on the U.S. and the West for defense technology. Saudi Arabia's "pivot east," so to speak, helps Riyadh balance out its foreign policy, avoiding an overreliance on U.S. support. When it comes to China in particular, Saudi Arabia has found a major power that (unlike the U.S.) will not criticize Saudi Arabia's human rights records and doesn't have close ties to Israel. That in and of itself makes a compelling case for Riyadh to seeks closer relations with Beijing.

But china had sold missiles to saudis in mid-80's itself right?? So why did they establish diplomatic relations with china in 90??
 

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
But china had sold missiles to saudis in mid-80's itself right?? So why did they establish diplomatic relations with china in 90??
This is because China and Taiwan have spent 5 decades battling each other for diplomatic recognition, so both "versions of China" have learned how to do most diplomatic business with 3rd parties without formal diplomatic relations.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
The Quote
does not hold true because using defense power as tool to resolve disputes cannot be peaceful.... and in the case of Japan China has taken very strong stands in the past ......
Civilian maritime security agencies such as the Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, Maritime Surveillance and Coast guard vessels patrol and exercise China's sovereignty in territorial (including disputed) waters, not the PLAN, which does not count as "defense power". Many countries around the world, including Japan use a similar policy.

In numerous clashes in around the "Spratly Islands" and "Scarborough Shoal", China has employed civilian maritime authority vessels and personnel, even when Vietnam and the Philippines were deploying their frontline naval vessels ( though in the Philippines case, its flagship is a retired USG cutter).

China makes regular use of China Coast Guard ships to assert and defend its maritime territorial claims, with Chinese Navy ships sometimes available over the horizon as backup forces. Chinese Coast Guard ships are unarmed or lightly armed, but can be effective in asserting and defending maritime territorial claims, particularly in terms of confronting or harassing foreign vessels that are similarly lightly armed or unarmed.
In the case of Japan its a deadlock for you as they do have strength to give you a tough flight....
I agree. The clashes in the ECS around the Diaoyutai's have often and mostly involved coast guard and maritime surveillance vessels, not the warships of the respective Japanese and hinese Navies, though some confrontations have occurred.

I am referring to Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia source for info.... so if any ambiguity is there do let me know...

on the other hand China has been following a strategic move claiming a large mass of land which is not under theer control stating old dynasty maps and all....
Same is the issue between India and China....

do correct me in case of any ambiguity or error....
That's a stark misrepresentation of history. the PRC and the RoC before it have always laid claim to the Diaoyutai's(which China administered before the Sino-Japanese war in which Japan forcefully seized them. even now, the RoC government in Taiwan has the exact same territorial claims that the PRC does. A fact often overlooked by geopolitics pundits when they're claiming that China is an "expansionist" "hegemon" "strategically" claiming territory.

The map of the nine-dash line, also called the U-shaped line or the cow tongue,26 predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. The map has been maintained by the PRC government, and maps published in Taiwan also show the nine line segments.27 In a
Another fact often overlooked is that the US unilaterally bestowed administration of the Diaoyutai's on Japan at the San Francisco Treaty which the PRC and the Soviet Union denounced and where excluded from despite the fact that conquered territory (including Chinese territory like Taiwan - called Formosa at the time - and the Diaoyutais) liberated from Imperial japan where being parceled out to its neighbors and some annexed by the US itself. A move China has often and loudly proclaimed to be an "unequal treaty". This narrative that China only started contesting Japanese administration of the Diaoyutais after "oil" was discovered under the seabed there in the 1970's is pure misrepresentation of historical realities. (Please refer to the Wikipedia link you posted).

The Soviet Union's objections were detailed in a lengthy September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko.[10] The statement contained a number of Soviet Union's claims and assertions:that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that the draft treaty violated the rights of China to Taiwan and several other islands; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. not having any legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.
Treaty of San Francisco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text of Gromyko's Statement on the Peace Treaty; Contrast With Other Treaties Cites Expansion After 1937 See Japan as a Military Base Soviet Delegate Says 'Separate Peace' May Embroil Far East in War, With Japan as Base U. S. Delegates Assailed Calls It Separate Treaty Sees Gross Injustice to ChinaDenies U. S. Consulted Soviet China's Claim to Islands Lists Soviet's Amendments
Text of Gromyko's Statement on the Peace Treaty - Contrast With Other Treaties Cites Expansion After 1937 See Japan as a Military Base Soviet Delegate Says 'Separate Peace' May Embroil Far East in War, With Japan as Base U. S. Delegates Assailed Call

One last fact I'd like to bring your attention to is the SCS dispute over the Spratly's, which is always portrayed in mainstream media as China "bullying its weak ASEAN neighbors despite all four claimants having overlapping claims. China(the RoC and the PRC) and Vietnam claim all of the Islands, whilst the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have claims to parts of the Island group. Vietnam claims all of the Islands despite less than 1% of the islands being in Vietnams EEZ, yet Vietnam( and to a degree Taiwan) is rarely if ever accused of violating UNCLOS or "international law" as China is by the "international community" ie the US and its alliance system (Australia, Japan, the Philippines etc).

the Spratly Islands in the SCS, which are claimed entirely by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in part by the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, and which are occupied in part by all these countries except Brunei;
The EEZs shown on the map do not represent the totality of maritime territorial claims by countries in the region. Vietnam, to cite one example, claims all of the Spratly Islands, even though most or all of the islands are outside the EEZ that Vietnam derives from its mainland coast.
Look through this congressional report for some facts( though most parts are a self-serving narrative of events on the part of the US) on the territorial disputes involving China in the SCS and ECS.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42784.pdf
 
Last edited:

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
The strategic implication of China's rise will be.........creation of a multi-polar World order...sooner than you think. Birth of a democratic, multi-polar World without hegemony of one nation or group.
 

HMS Astute

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
802
Likes
232
NATO submit will be held next month in UK and i think that 2 foremost subjects would be instated, including the catastrophes occurring in Ukraine and Iraq/Syria. I had heard that all the NATO members will be reassured to increase the defence budget to 2% of GDP. I reckon the US will slowly withdraw it's hard power, troops and influence from the middle east region and this role will be handed over to Europe, which will allow the US to shift more of it's power to the east and focus on China predominantly. This will be a positive news to those hoping for US protection and deployment in south east Asia.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top