Chinese Wisdom

China Arrives – the U S Fades …

Posted on July 21, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom, Searching for Success, Uncategorized |

From the WSJ …..

Last October, satellite images captured the distinctive outlines of some powerful new weaponry at a Saudi runway used for military strikes in Yemen. Three Wing Loong drones had appeared, Chinese-made replicas of the U.S. Predator with a similar ability to stay aloft for hours carrying missiles and bombs.

The same month, another Chinese military drone, the CH-4 Rainbow, appeared in a photo of an airstrip in Jordan near the Syrian border. Other commercial satellite images have since revealed Chinese strike and surveillance drones at bases used by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

These images and others now being scrutinized in international defense circles add to growing evidence that military drones exported by China have recently been deployed in conflicts in the Mideast and Africa by several countries, including U.S. allies that the U.S. blocked from buying American models.

For the U.S., that is a strategic and commercial blow.

The U.S. has long refused to sell the most powerful U.S.-made drones to most countries, fearing they might fall into hostile hands, be used to suppress civil unrest or, in the Mideast, erode Israel’s military dominance. The U.K. is the only foreign country that has operated armed Predators and Reapers, the most potent U.S. systems for offensive drone strikes, according to people familiar with U.S. sales.

The Obama administration, while seeking to facilitate exports under close regulation, led efforts to forge a global “drone code” that would curb proliferation and keep the weapons from misuse.

But China is filling the void. State companies are selling aircraft resembling General Atomics’s Predator and Reaper drones at a fraction of the cost to U.S. allies and partners, and to other buyers.

China’s sales have enabled multiple countries—including some with weak legal systems and scant public oversight of the military—to use unmanned aerial vehicles to spy and kill remotely as the U.S. has done on a large scale since 9/11.

Among the Pentagon’s concerns is that advanced drones could be used against American forces. In Syria, U.S. pilots have shot down two Iranian-made armed drones threatening members of the U.S.-led coalition.

U.S. export policy that is driving partners to buy Chinese “hurts U.S. strategic interests in so many ways,” said Paul Scharre, a former Pentagon official at the nonpartisan Center for a New American Security. “It damages the U.S. relationship with a close partner. It increases that partner’s relationship with a competitor nation, China. It hurts U.S. companies trying to compete.”

China’s drone exports are now starting to influence U.S. policy, as American manufacturers and politicians lobby the Trump administration to relax export controls to stop China from expanding market share and undermining U.S. alliances.

The White House National Security Council is reviewing the drone-export process with the goal to “wherever possible” remove obstacles to American companies’ ability to compete, a senior Trump administration official said.“We are attuned to what China is doing,” the official said.

Thomas Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, emphasized the effort to balance economics and security. The administration seeks to help U.S. industry while advancing strategic objectives, he said, including “a deliberate approach to our technology sales policy and the protections we put in place to avoid imperiling innocent lives.”

China, meanwhile, has its sights on another milestone: building military drones in the Mideast. In March, Chinese and Saudi officials agreed to jointly produce as many as 100 Rainbow drones in Saudi Arabia, including a larger, longer-range version called the CH-5, according to people involved.

Shi Wen, the chief designer of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp.’s Rainbow, said earlier versions of the aircraft had been exported to the Mideast, Africa and Asia and were proved “on the battlefield,” hitting 300 targets in the previous year or so with Chinese laser-guided missiles.

“Our main competitors? The Americans, of course,” Li Yidong, chief designer of the Wing Loong, which is built by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, said in November at China’s biggest air and defense show, in the southern city of Zhuhai.

Behind him, a video screen played animated clips depicting a drone strike on a terrorist base, set to a thumping soundtrack. Nearby, miniskirted models posed with laser-guided missiles.

Beijing used to sell mainly low-tech arms to poorer countries; now it is marketing sophisticated items including stealth fighters, and targeting markets once dominated by Russia and the U.S. Sales help Beijing gain leverage in areas where its economic interests are expanding, adding muscle to President Xi Jinping’s drive to establish his country as a global power.

China is now the world’s third-biggest arms seller by value, behind the U.S. at No. 1 and Russia, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, or SIPRI.

Maintaining such a ranking depends in large part on demand for China’s armed drones, which China has sold to countries including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the U.A.E., the Pentagon said in a report in June.

“China faces little competition for sale of such systems, as most countries that produce them are restricted in selling the technology” by international agreements, it said.

Key among those agreements limiting American sales is the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime, signed by 35 nations including the U.S., but not China. The MTCR limits exports based on an unmanned system’s range and how much it can carry—putting tight restrictions on the most powerful American drones.

In 2015, the Obama administration issued new export rules that tried to enable drone exports if buyers agreed to use them in line with international human-rights law.

The rules grew in part from the administration’s expansion of drone operations in places such as Afghanistan. The growth spurred concerns about the lawfulness of killings outside combat areas and the ethics of remote-control warfare—including the targeting of Americans, such as al Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.

In an effort to address legal uncertainty and the global precedent it was setting, the Obama administration sought to develop a framework for how governments use such weapons.

In October, after months of U.S. lobbying, 45 countries signed the world’s first joint declaration on the export and use of armed or strike-enabled aerial drones. The declaration said misuse of such drones could “fuel conflict and instability” and urged exporters to be transparent about sales and ensure buyers observed laws of war.

In the Mideast, only Jordan and Iraq endorsed the statement.

China didn’t sign. Its foreign ministry said the issue was “complicated” and related to “cross-border strikes” as well as exports. It noted that other drone producers didn’t sign last year’s declaration and deeper talks were needed.

Some of the declaration’s proponents worry that several states could relax export rules to compete with China. “This would be a drone-against-drone world driven by profits, not protection of civilians,” said Wim Zwijnenburg, a disarmament campaigner for the Dutch group PAX who participated in negotiations on enhancing the declaration. He said China’s sales could fuel regional tensions as states act across borders—which can be done with drones at lower cost and less risk to personnel.

The Pentagon estimates China could produce almost 42,000 aerial drones—sale value more than $10 billion—in the decade up to 2023.

Beijing’s drone program began with old Soviet designs; more recently, U.S. officials say, China used espionage and open-source material to reverse-engineer U.S. drones. Beijing denies that.

U.S. armed drones are still overwhelmingly considered the most capable, in part because the U.S. satellite infrastructure that controls them is superior. Israel has been the top military-drone exporter for years, according to SIPRI. But Israel has largely avoided selling them in its own Mideast neighborhood.

A Wing Loong, meanwhile, costs about $1 million compared with about $5 million for its U.S.-made counterpart, the Predator, and about $15 million for a Reaper, whose Chinese competition is the CH-5.

Buyers welcome the chance to buy relatively cheap weapons that they say come with fewer restrictions than Western equivalents. Promotional materials from China suggest it has sold Rainbows or Wing Loongs to at least 10 countries.

Satellite imagery viewed by The Wall Street Journal shows Chinese strike and surveillance drones have been used by Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. in the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen.

After the Obama administration rebuffed a request from the U.A.E. for shoot-to-kill drones, the Emiratis bought Chinese surveillance drones and equipped them with South African laser targeting systems, according to Danny Sebright, a former Pentagon official and president of the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council. The U.A.E. has used them to guide missiles from planes for strikes in Yemen, he said.

In Libya, the U.A.E. is using Chinese drones to help support a general who opposes the United Nations-backed government in Tripoli, satellite images indicate. They also show that Egypt’s military is deploying Chinese drones in the Sinai Peninsula in its campaign against Islamist militants.

A North Korean drone that crashed in South Korea in 2014 was Chinese-made, according to a U.N. report. Iraq last year published video of its missile attacks on Islamic State from a Chinese drone, and Nigeria issued footage of a strike by a Chinese drone on the Boko Haram insurgency. An official with Iraq’s Joint Operations Command said Iraq has used the Chinese-made CH-4 Rainbow. A Nigerian Air Force spokesman said Nigeria was using CH-3 Rainbows procured from China.

U.S. manufacturers, and their political backers, argue that Washington can no longer prevent drone proliferation.

Weapons makers have been buoyed by President Donald Trump’s statements of support for U.S. manufacturing and for a $110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia that includes some items that were blocked by the Obama administration. The administration in June approved the sale to India of 22 Guardian drones, an unarmed maritime version of the Reaper.

Bart Roper, executive vice president of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., said the U.S. is ceding the drone market to Chinese and others “due to obsolete and arbitrary restrictions.”

He expressed hope the Trump administration would revise policy to better promote U.S. industry.

In April, 22 members of Congress—led by Rep. Duncan Hunter, who represents the San Diego district not far from where General Atomics is based—asked the administration to approve Reaper exports to Jordan and the U.A.E. They argued that the Arab allies in the fight against Islamic State are buying Chinese drones instead, and that export approval would save U.S. jobs.

In recent months, China has unveiled larger, longer-range drones and tested radar-evading stealth models, according to state media. It has also expanded its marketing, displaying its drones for the first time in Mexico in April and in France in June.

At the Chinese air show in November, two uniformed Saudi officers inspected a CH-5 Rainbow—the model most similar to the Reaper—displayed publicly for the first time. “It’s amazing,” said one. “This thing can stay up for more than 24 hours.”

The CH-5 can in fact operate for up to 40 hours, its manufacturer says—about 50% longer than its American competition.


President Xi Jinping’s Most Dangerous Venture Yet: Remaking China’s Military
China Eases Foot Off Gas on Military Spending
China’s government and drone manufacturers declined to reveal who bought the aircraft. The foreign ministry said Beijing requires strict user agreements—offering no details—and ensures that its arms sales do no harm to regional peace and stability.
“China is paying high attention to the question of the use and export of armed drones,” it said. Authorities from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.A.E. and Jordan declined to comment.
China began exporting strike-enabled drones around 2014-2015, heralding a new phase in its arms industry as a global competitor that can influence conflicts and alliances world-wide.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Chinese Expansionism …

Posted on July 21, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom |

Sanjay Kumar comments on an Article in CNN

Now that it is clear to everyone that Pakistan’s CPEC is not just a road infrastructure project, but a plan to propel Pakistan into a prosperous ‘Chinese province look alike’.

Indians get it wrong all the time. they are forever commenting on bits and pieces and never get the big picture of China’s global gaming.

The big picture is WORLD DOMINANCE and Pakistan will be the showpiece to sell to the world in terms of what you will get if you submit your allegiance to China.

This makes them a de-facto alternate to US, while hoping to make India look like a chaotic, infrastructure wise poor cousin to Pakistan……… or an example of , ‘this is how you will be if you don’t join us’ .

Whether its Artificial intelligence where China has left Indian behind in future IT, quantum mechanics, robots, capital markets, solar production, phones, bullet trains, TV’s, manufacturing, military hardware, securing raw material resources across the world by setting up a Infrastructure bank to finance developing world governments needs to build their country free from traditional western institutions, aimed to help the west dominate the world.

They have a grand vision and are going sector by sector. They have a vision and India has none. We are not able to manage our tiny neighbor’s trust like Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

India has become an irritant in China’s grand plan- not a threat in their minds. India is not a small country that you can flick off. But it’s a huge, chaotic , melodramatic , noisy irritant and maybe a pest that makes big noises on social and mass media – with jocular comments from corny journalists, random illiterates and even some politicians about confronting the Chinese.

In the Chinese mind we are not in the run for any greatness but just an irritant for them. But others could flock to them.

The Doklam standoff has to be seen in this light. It’s not just a simple issue of a strategic piece of barren land in a non essential part of China but something useful to keep India in a state of perpetual anxiety.

Something they can use to divide the Indian army deployment every time we become adventurous about their investments in a country called Pakistan. This has suddenly become a question of ‘Loss of Face’ in front of a world that has noticed the standoff and is waiting to see if this bully will pulverize the boy who had the courage to stand up.

The world will take its cue from what happens in the next few weeks . Those who wonder why China went so extremely shrill for a small piece of land for the first time, did not understand what is at stake here on a larger scale from the Chinese point of view. China has unknowingly, unwittingly and accidentally been propelled into a situation where there is a lot at stake in terms of the pride and big boy image they have cultivated across the world.

The article from CNN points to many executional flaws on various bits and pieces . But what it does not , which is the same as what many Indian commentators do not get is that the sum of the parts is always larger than the whole.

Yes its true that Sri Lanka and Myanmar are a bit upset with the toys they got from China, as it does not play as well as the shopkeeper said it would. Having said that , they are still aware that someone gave them toys to play while the other suitor promises a lot of brotherhood and are in the habit of going away without giving anything and have a tendency to unpredictable mood swings and random actions.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

US – China Trade Talks fizzle …

Posted on July 19, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom |

Google News –

U.S. officials led by Jared Kushner, fell short of securing ambitious gains in trade with China in a meeting Wednesday and news conferences planned to cap off the event were canceled as the two countries wrapped up 100 days of trade talks.

The United States unsuccessfully pressed China to make a substantial commitment to cut its steel production, according to people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions. U.S. officials also asked China to do more to reduce its trade surplus with the United States and open its market for agriculture, financial services and data flows, the people said.

In a terse statement released after the talks, the Treasury Department said that China had “acknowledged our shared objective to reduce the trade deficit which both sides will work cooperatively to achieve.” It also pointed to earlier-announced agreements on issues including credit ratings, electronic payments, liquefied natural gas and American beef.

The Treasury and Commerce departments did not provide further comment, while the Chinese Embassy did not respond to a request for comment.

One of the few bright spots of the session was that, when Ross pressed the Chinese, they acknowledged the need to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and declared it to be a mutual goal, said an administration source familiar with the negotiations, who spoke anonymously to candidly discuss them.

The Trump administration is considering imposing tariffs or other restrictions on imports of steel and aluminum, on the grounds that China has unfairly flooded the global market with these commodities and made U.S. producers unable to compete. Analysts say the tariffs could come within days.

In a closed-door meeting with the Senate Finance Committee last week, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the administration hoped that the threat of harsh action would bring other countries to the negotiating table, according to people who attended the meeting.

In a stern speech that kicked off Wednesday’s talks, Ross pointed out that China accounts for nearly half of the U.S. trade deficit in goods and called for rebalancing the relationship.

“As President Trump has made clear at Mar-a-Lago, the fundamental asymmetry in our trade relationship and market access must be addressed. We must create more balance in our trade by increasing exports of made-in-America goods to China,” Ross said.

At a nearby event highlighting products made in America — the theme the White House had chosen for the week —President Trump pledged to “crack down on foreign countries that cheat.”

“They take our intellectual property like we are a bunch of babies, but no longer,” Trump said of foreign manufacturers.

Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University who focuses on China, said domestic politicaldynamics on both sides of the relationship are driving conflict. The Trump administration is eager to check off policy goals at home after delays in implementing its tax and health-care overhaul, while the Chinese are heading into important political meetings this fall where new leaders will be appointed and do not want to appear weak.

“It looks like the U.S.-China relationship is again entering a rough patch,” Prasad said. “Neither of them can appear to be too soft with the other.”

Trump was initially warm with China’s leaders, praising President Xi Jinping after a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April where the two countries launched a 100-day action plan to improve trade relations.

In May, the administration cheered initial progress under the talks, as China received its first shipment of beef in 14 years and pledged to begin the purchase of U.S. liquefied natural gas and open its financial-services sector to U.S. companies.

But in June, Trump’s tone turned more critical, as China failed to provide the assistance he wanted in combating the nuclear threat from North Korea.

“Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for China working with us – but we had to give it a try!” Trump tweeted.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

China – India; Eye Ball to Eye Ball …

Posted on July 16, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom, From a Services Career, Searching for Success |

Maj Gen Ashok Mehta in the Wire.

The month-long standoff between the Indian army and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Doklam sector of Bhutan, though pretty civilised so far, has become the longest ever.

Briefly, the stand-off story so far is this: The PLA has clandestinely been encroaching on Bhutanese territory since the mid-1960s with a long view to build a Class-40 road which can carry medium tanks and artillery through the strategic Chumbi valley which abuts India and Bhutan to a tri-junction point which is the very tip of the Chumbi dagger which is dangerously close to a bottleneck encompassing Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan.

This time around, the PLA road construction party was initially cautioned by a Bhutanese Army patrol. Later when they failed to stop them, the Indian soldiers in the vicinity arrived to help the Bhutanese to deter the PLA from bulldozing its road construction through territory claimed both by China and Bhutan. This is the first time India has confronted the PLA on third country soil in Bhutan. India has a long-standing commitment to Bhutan’s defence and security even if there in no formal military alliance.

Two issues arise from this illegal and unauthorised activity – the intended road would transgress Bhutanese territory at Doklam and its destination, the tri-junction, is also disputed. According to bilateral agreements between India and China in 2012, and between Bhutan and China in 1988 and 1999, the disputes are to be resolved through the existing dialogue processes.

While India and China have had 19 rounds of Special Representative talks, China and Bhutan have engaged in 28 rounds of border talks though Thimpu has no trade or diplomatic relations with Beijing. In their conversations with Bhutan, China, in 1999, offered a package deal to swap territory in the north with land in the west comprising the eastern shoulder of the Chumbi valley, significantly including the Doklam plateau.

For New Delhi, Indian troops have gone to the aid of a neighbour, Bhutan, because the intended construction of a strategic road from Lhasa-Shigaste to Yadong in the Chumbi valley towards the disputed tri-junction would confer profound strategic military advantage on the PLA. The Chumbi valley dagger would pose a threat not just to Bhutan but also to the critically narrow Siliguri corridor, linking mainland India with its north-east. Moreover, it would send the wrong signal to India’s neighbours that it does not stand by its friends and allies and treaty obligations. Being locked in the valley also poses risks for the PLA.

This is not the first time the PLA has attempted its ‘creep’ strategy to first commandeer territory and then offer to negotiate after having violated standstill agreements. Grabbing Aksai Chin in the late 1950s and more recently its unilateral and illegitimate activity in the South China sea are examples. The sequence of events played out now at Doklam has an uncanny resemblance to intrusive activity in the same area in 1966-67. The history of the incident is encapsulated in an article by sinologist Claude Arpi in The Pioneer. More interestingly, the Chinese then, as now, were trying to unhinge Bhutan from its defence relationship with India. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had to remind the Chinese that India would stand by Bhutan, come what may.

The Chinese propaganda machine has launched a relentless psy war campaign which is unprecedented in recent times. It has turned obfuscation to a fine art, deftly combining history and legacy while cherry-picking portions of agreements (1890 Anglo-Chinese Convention) that are laced with coercion. On a daily basis, the foreign ministry, the PLA, Global Times, Xinhua and think tanks are issuing statements and threats, warning India about a repeat of 1962 and teaching it another lesson. They accuse India of reneging on Panchsheel and are repeatedly demanding Indian soldiers retract from the confrontation at Doklam by withdrawing first if any dialogue is to follow. Beijing has put itself in a corner leaving it no wriggle room or a face-saving option. As events have shown, India will not budge as the stakes are too high for it to blink first.

The most celebrated incident of the Indian Army challenging the PLA incursions was in 1986 at a tiny grazing ground in Wangdung near Sumdorong Chu where they established a post west of Tawang. Like at Doklam, the PLA was in the valley dominated by high ridgelines occupied by the Indian army. The dispute was over the alignment of the watershed with India claiming it was north of the grazing ground and China contending it was south of it. India’s strong stand dragged the confrontation for ten months culminating in the landmark visit of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to Beijing in December 1986. Both sides agreed to withdraw simultaneously from positions they had occupied before the intrusion. During this near eyeball confrontation for ten months, not a shot was fired.

Given the evidence of the recent face-offs, it is unlikely the current stand-off will escalate into a shooting match at Doklam where the PLA is hemmed in by two ridge lines of the Chumbi valley occupied by Indian and Bhutanese troops. Doklam is 40 km from Yadong which is the PLA logistic base. In any short and sharp skirmish in this area, the PLA will not win the argument. On the other hand, it will suffer much greater losses than the Indian troops as it did in the Nathula clash of 1967. Doklam could go the Sumdorong Chu way leading to a meeting of high officials to defuse the crisis.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s brief meeting with Prime Minister Modi and his remarks at the BRICS meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit this Friday advocating ‘political and peaceful settlement of regional conflicts and disputes’ indicates the face-off will cool down. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, Modi told Xi the two nations must not turn differences into dispute. China’s conditionality that Indian troops must withdraw first for any dialogue to start can be softened by employing the principle of simultaneity. As has happenened in the past, both sides can withdraw together from Doklam and prevent the dispute escalating into a bigger conflict.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

China warns India …

Posted on July 8, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom |

From CNN.

Tucked away beyond more pressing global headlines, India has been tussling with its bigger rival China.

The Chinese were building a road across the Himalayan mountain range when Bhutan accused China of encroaching on its land. Neighboring India—as a longstanding Bhutanese ally—got involved.

The move seems to have incensed Beijing. The state-sanctioned tabloid Global Times—seen as an unvarnished (and undiplomatic) riff on establishment views—ran an editorial warning India of hubris –
“The Chinese public is infuriated by India’s provocation,” it said. “The Indian military can choose to return to its territory with dignity, or be kicked out of the area by Chinese soldiers.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

China Wraps and Roasts Pakistan …

Posted on June 1, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom, Pakistan |

Have the Pakistanis read the Story of Hambantota port of Sri Lanka?     …………  China sold Sri Lanka a plan to develop Hambantota Port during tenure of previous regime of Sri Lanka. China gave them a big loan (did not spend their own money) to Sri Lanka for developing Hambantota. With their clout in Colombo, Chinese ensured that all the contracts of construction of Hambantota  were secured by Chinese companies only.    .

In a way, most of the money came back to China. Now the Hambantota is ready but does not get revenue because it never could have – but Sri Lankans have a big debt which they cannot repay. Now the game. Chinese are  negotiating with Sri Lankans that they lease the port to them for forgoing the loan.
Meaning Chinese will get Hambantota port and 2000 acres of land around it, and they will turn it into a military base. Hambantota is a good site for a military base but not for a maritime port.
The game. China gave a loan to Sri Lanka, which Sri Lanka gave to Chinese companies to build a port which will be used as a naval base by China. And China will get Hambantota port plus 2000 acres of land around it for free for 99+99 years.

Sri Lanka lost their sovereign land for nothing. This is Debt Trap Diplomacy Suggest ead the CPEC Long Term Plan (LTP) document on Dawn’s Exclusive on CPEC, and then every Pakistani should ask the following:                                                                        .

1) Why was port of Gwadar leased out to the Chinese for 43 years for free? If not, how much money did China pay for lease of Gwadar?                                                          .

2) How much tariff shall China pay for containers passing every year through Pakistan? Or has a lump some amount been decided?                                                           .

3) Why is the Pakistani taxpayer paying more than $11 billion for construction of highways under CPEC scheme when China is going to be the primary beneficiary of those highways?                                                                                                                              .

4). Why cannot China pay at least half of that amount? And why is China charging interest rate that is higher than market rate? Why didn’t China give an interest free loan?                                                                                                                                                  .

5) Why shall China be acquiring large pieces of agricultural land in Pakistan to set up the so called demonstration parks in Pakistan, as mentioned in Dawn’s exclusive on CPEC? Won’t that acquisition give tough competition to small farmers and eventually make Pakistani farmers landless labourers in Chinese farms on Pakistani farmlands.  .

6) Coal power projects would produce electricity at a very expensive price. And all the projects are guaranteed by Government of Pakistan. Any loss or inability to buy expensive coal based power shall be of Pakistani taxpayers’. Why is that so?                  .

The Bottom Line is that Pakistan hasn’t negotiated CPEC in its favour. Slowly, Chinese will be running all the enterprises in Pakistan and they will have an extraordinary clout in determining the policy of various governments in Pakistan. Earlier, it was Allah, America, Army. Now it is China, China and China.

Question to every Pakistani –
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Possibility of US China War …

Posted on April 28, 2017. Filed under: American Thinkers, Chinese Wisdom |

These extracts are from a Speech by Nick Xenophon, an Australian Senator – 

Earlier Britain and then the USA was our trading partner and strategic ally. Now China is our largest two-way trading partner in goods and services ($150 billion), our largest export market ($86 billion) and our largest source of imports ($64 billion). And the integrated East Asian economic zone is the world’s fastest growing.

So, how do we negotiate the tension between our major security partner and our major trading partner?

China sees as vital to its security the string of archipelagos from northern Borneo to the Kuril Islands north-east of Japan. It has piled sand onto reefs in the South China Sea, creating seven new artificial islands, and has installed missile batteries and radar facilities, giving it effective control over sea and air traffic in the region.

Increased tension between the US and China seems inevitable, and Australia may well get dragged in.

Last year the RAND Corporation published a report called “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable”.

It makes sobering reading. Their research team concluded that “war between the two countries (the US and China) could be intense, last a year or more, have no winner, and inflict huge losses and costs on both sides.”

China’s defensive military capabilities will continue to increase, and it will be able to inflict heavy losses on its opponents.

As both sides’ technologies and doctrine create a preference for striking first, the potential for miscalculation is high. Each side may believe that by striking first it can gain and retain the initiative, and by doing so it might be able to end a conflict quickly.

Yet this kind of thinking has uncomfortable parallels with Europe of a century ago, when the belligerents initiated their own military plans to attack before being attacked, and both sides believed that in doing so they would gain operational dominance and end the war swiftly. Back then, both sides had strong economic ties, which ‘experts’ said would prevent any conflict.

Furthermore, using the line and military strategy attributed to Sun Tzu, China may decide to “kill the chicken to scare the monkey” – sink an Australian vessel to warn off the United States Navy.

Are we truly ready for the consequences of a war?

Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, where there were relatively few casualties, this time we may see large numbers of body bags returning, or never returning at all, since they may have been sunk at sea.

Other consequences – Calls from the extreme political fringe for Chinese Australians to be interned in camps?  For India reinforcing its troops along its border with China? For Russia to be emboldened along its western border? For increased activity in the Middle East, as extremists there take advantage of US preoccupation in the South China Sea?

We already know what the invasion of Iraq unleashed. And back home the consequences would be catastrophic, both for our economy and society.

RAND said a US-China war could shrink China’s GDP by up to 35 per cent and the USA’s by up to 10 per cent. But given our much higher trade dependence on China and the region, a 30 per cent contraction would not be out of the question.

And demographically? Seeing Chinese Australians and Chinese students on our streets shows how integral they’ve become to our nation’s fabric. A war with China would rip Australia’s economy and society apart.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

South China Sea Dispute – (In the back ground also N Korea)

Posted on April 22, 2017. Filed under: American Thinkers, Chinese Wisdom, From a Services Career |

Dotted with small islands, reefs and shoals, the South China Sea is a crucial shipping route and home a messy territorial dispute that pits multiple countries against one another.

Tensions in the contest waters have ratcheted up since 2014 as China has turned sandbars into islands, equipping them with airfields, ports and weapons systems and warned US warships and aircraft to stay away from them. Adding fuel to this heady mix, the Trump administration looks set to take a much more confrontational stance toward Beijing than its predecessor — setting the stage for a potential showdown.
China bases its claims on the “nine-dash line” — its claimed territorial waters that extend hundreds of miles to the south and east of its island province of Hainan, abut its neighbors’ claims and, in some cases, encroach upon them.
The Paracel Islands (Xisha to Beijing) have been controlled by China since 1974, but they are also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan. Tensions flared in 2014 when China installed exploratory oil rigs in the vicinity.
The situation is more complicated in the Spratlys, which Beijing calls the Nansha islands. The archipelago consists of 100 smalls islands and reefs of which 45 are occupied by China, Malaysia, Vietnam or the Philippines. All of the islands are claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam, while some of them (or nearby waters) are claimed by the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.
What’s China been building?
In early 2014, China quietly began massive dredging operations centering on the seven reefs it controls in the Spratly Islands — Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Gaven Reef and Hughes Reef. According to the US, China has reclaimed more than 3,000 acres since the beginning of 2014.
On his 2015 trip to Washington, Chinese President Xi Jinping said China wouldn’t militarize the islands, but a December report from the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) said China had installed comprehensive weapons systems on seven reefs that include anti-aircraft guns. Some have called the islands China’s “unsinkable aircraft carriers.”
Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan have also reclaimed land in the South China Sea, but their land grab — the US says approximately 100 acres over 45 years — is dwarfed by China’s massive, recent buildup. What’s the US view? It could be changing.
The US has traditionally taken no position on the territorial disputes in the South China Sea but has repeatedly asserted its right to freedom of navigation in the disputed waters, with the US military flying and sailing its assets close to the islands China controls.
Tillerson and Trump have not minced their words on the issue, suggesting that the State Department could take a more muscular approach. “Building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea. Its taking of territory that others lay claim to,” Tillerson said in his confirmation hearing.
“We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed.”
Blocking Chinese naval vessels from accessing South China Sea reefs would almost certainly trigger a US-China clash, says Ashley Townshend, a research fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.
“More to the point: as many of the reefs are effectively a part of international waters, preventing Chinese ships from sailing to or near them would undermine the very freedom of navigation rules that the US has been trying to uphold,” he adds.
China warns US surveillance plan with CNN crew on board
China warns US surveillance plan with CNN crew on board 03:47         What could China do? As China stretches its muscles as a growing superpower, the South China Sea, rich in oil and gas reserves, has become a testing ground for whether the country will rise as part of the existing international order or outside it. China says both the Paracels and the Spratlys are an “integral part” of its territory, offering up maps that date back to the early 20th century.
It has repeatedly defended its right to build both civil and defensive facilities on the islands it controls. In December, a Chinese warship unlawfully seized an underwater drone from a US oceanographic vessel.
One new strategy could be to declare an air defense zone in the South China Sea, which would require all aircraft to file flight plans even if they don’t enter Chinese airspace.
Beijing has also ignored a landmark ruling last year by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which said there was no legal basis for China’s maritime claims. Even though they now have international law on their side, other claimants have done little to challenge Beijing. The Philippines, which originally brought the case, has pivoted towards Beijing under President Rodrigo Duterte.
Beijing’s response to Tillerson and Trump’s comments to date has been fairly muted, but some analysts think Beijing could soon test the new US commander in chief.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

China eyes Indian Tech Expertise …

Posted on March 2, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom |

China eyeing high-skilled Indians to turn itself a technological hub – Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, ET Bureau 

China is hoping to attract highly skilled Indian workers on the lines of the United States as it strives to turn the country from a manufacturing hub into a centre of technological innovation.
The move, which comes at a time when bilateral ties have hit a low amid China’s attempts to shield Pakistan-based internationally designated terrorists and block India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, could act as a confidence building measure, people familiar with the matter said.

In a recent article titled ‘China should hire Indian science, high-tech talent to maintain innovation ability’, state-run Global Times said that China has perhaps not been working hard enough to attract science and technology talent from India to work in the country.

This could open up a new destination for highly skilled Indian workers at a time when they are facing potentially tougher visa rules in the US.

“Over the past few years, China witnessed an unprecedented boom in tech jobs as the country became an attractive destination for foreign research and development centres,” Hu Weijia, a staffer with the Global Times wrote. “However, now some high-tech firms are turning their attention from China to India due to the latter’s relatively low labour costs. Attracting high-tech talent from India could be one of China’s options for maintaining its innovation ability.”

US-based software firm CA Technologies has disbanded its almost 300-person research and development team in China while setting up a team in India with some 2,000 scientific and technical professionals over the past few years, Chinese news portal reported recently. India, with a sufficient young talent pool, is becoming increasingly attractive, the Global Times said.

While many Indians are based in the trading hubs of China the country has so far failed to attract Indian talent in high-tech sectors, its modernisation drive notwithstanding.

“There is a general impression in China that Indians are technically smart and have contributed to the US research and innovation driven industries. The Communist Party of China has set the objective of transforming China from a manufacturing hub to a place known for development of new-age technology,” said an official, who did not wish to be identified.

The Xi Jinping government, according to an expert on Chinese economy, intends to change the perception of China being a manufacturer of cheap goods.

“This trend has been observed in the health sector, with an exclusive institute on medical research that has been set up in Shanghai. This is attracting largely researchers from Scandinavia, Canada and the US,” the expert told ET on condition of anonymity.

While the move can be seen as a confidence building measure, the Chinese will approach this as a pure business model, the expert said.

The Global Times article expressed similar sentiment. “China cannot afford to risk a decline in its attractiveness for high-tech investors. The nation is among the third echelon in cutting-edge technology fields and is working to catch up with the US and the result of its efforts will decide whether China will maintain its status as an emerging global economic power,” the newspaper said. “China has made the mistake of ignoring Indian talent, and instead has attached a greater importance to talent coming from the US and Europe.”

It said the talent pool in China is not large and flexible enough to meet demand for the rapid expansion of innovation capability. “In Silicon Valley, a considerable number of software developers working there are born outside the US. China should also strive to attract more foreign talent into the country as it aims to build itself into a world-class research hub… China has made the mistake of ignoring Indian talent, and instead has attached a greater importance to talent coming from the US and Europe,” it said.

According to the article, certain enterprises in Southwest China’s Guizhou province provide better lifestyle and salaries for Indian talent than in Bengaluru.
A total of 1,576 foreigners were granted permanent residence in China in 2016, an increase of 163 per cent over the previous year.


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Chinese Real Politic in CPEC …

Posted on January 15, 2017. Filed under: Chinese Wisdom, Pakistan | Tags: |

-By Syed Talat Hussain former executive editor of The News and a senior journalist with Geo TV

From Beijing’s point of view, Pakistan’s stability is of the utmost importance – not because the Chinese love us but because we happen to have a geography that fits into their plan for the next century, which they believe will have them on top of the hierarchy of nations. 

Trade routes are lifelines. So are energy corridors. We happen to provide both.

The shortest and best connectivity with the rest of the world which also allows them to develop the whole of their country by harnessing its vast land mass for more production – that’s what we are to the Chinese.

For us, China is a friend in deed because we are always in need of strategic wherewithal like nuclear cooperation; of vital diplomatic support to offset the Goliath in the east, India, and of investment from outside sources most of which, other than the Chinese, have become exceedingly risk-weary and therefore averse to putting their pretty penny in our land.

It is not a free lunch for us – modern day China is too practical minded to offer anything free.

We are bordering on becoming China’s backyard where it would land its goods and elbow out ours. We are also getting recruited in a power game of a global scale that is likely to cut the world into Eastern and Western blocks precariously balanced on an uncertain nuclear threshold.

It is dangerous to be tied to the knee of a behemoth. Every move can shatter the bones. But we have few options except to cling on. China is a friendly giant whose embrace we feel comfortable in.

Logically, the mutuality of these interests should keep things stable between us and the Chinese. And this is how it is as well. Things are stable. Nobody wants to lose Chinese goodwill, their advice and of course their time-tested friendship and trust. From Maulana Fazlur Rehman to Ayaz Lateef Palejo, from Imran Khan to Nawaz Sharif and from retired generals to the serving ones, there is a stated consensus that China is holier than all external cows and must be treated as such too.

But logic also demands that we ought to demonstrate through our actions that we understand the Chinese sensitivities and, more important, realise that their global agenda presupposes a certain rationality on our part in our actions. Of late this presupposed rationality has gone up in smoke, leaving the Chinese on the verge of tearing their hair out over the bewildering speed at which we are journeying down into chaos, singing all the way.

From the Chinese point of view, there has not been a moment’s prudent silence in Pakistan ever since the CPEC has come to the fore. An engineered and provincialised internal controversy on how the western route is missing from the whole scheme was followed by endless political turmoil in the country threatening to unleash disorder that could affect the whole timetable of the CPEC.

The last dharna by Imran Khan caused the CPEC signing to be postponed (the Chinese have long-term memory and events are meticulously filed in durable shelves and never forgotten) and it was not lost on Beijing how Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was taking the lead in protesting the alleged bias in the CPEC and threatening to not let this scheme take off in that part of Pakistan if its complaints weren’t addressed.

It is a coincidence (Chinese do not believe in coincidences) that KP Chief Minister Pervaiz Khattak is still on a self-declared war-path with the centre on this vital corridor and his leader is a few days away from laying a siege on the capital city demanding the prime minister’s resignation and effectively dissolving the government.

One does not have to meet anyone to know this qualification has importance since the Cyril story, (and now all journalists must insist that they get their stories through intuition) how frustrated the Chinese are over these matters that hang in the air like a bad smell refusing to go away.

The Chinese have taken the unusual step of explaining the CPEC to the sceptics via Twitter (just imagine!) where their diplomats take public questions and unravel the so-called mystery of which route is being built first and which is being left out.

They have met all significant leaders in Pakistan, pleading sanity and advising rationality for the larger interest of both the countries. They have complained (in a nice Chinese way that involves sobriety and careful formulations) that Pakistan ought to get its priorities straight and desist from taking a path that leads nowhere except to the derailment of the mutual understanding on the CPEC.

However, to no avail. The Chinese have had far little success in drilling their message home on this count as compared to the earlier problem when a virtual power struggle broke out within the decision-making echelons over who would control the execution of the CPEC schemes. In that case they were able to shoot trouble by meeting all ‘stakeholders’ (post the Dawn-story episode it is now imperative for the sake of national interest that stakeholders must never be named) and cautioning that these squabbles are quite petty.

But now the Chinese aren’t making any headway. Their efforts have been fruitless to point to the gains of the CPEC as a way to suggest that the present bout of political warfare is totally counter-productive. Every day the spiral of political hate goes a circle higher and the possibility of events spinning out of control inches closer to becoming reality.

Knowing the Chinese propensity to analyse all situations in expanded frameworks, it would not be wrong to assume that Beijing sees the events in Pakistan as part of a struggle that involves global interests. (Beijing must have also noticed foreign-funded non-governmental organisations running open campaigns against the CPEC and motivating public sentiment against the CPEC.)

The Chinese can be forgiven for assuming that Pakistan’s power elite are actually divided into three distinct groups: the Washington-London Group; the Middle-Eastern Group; the Chinese Group. And while everyone pays homage to Beijing, the reality of the situation is that external lobbies are working their agendas through their chosen ones.

These groups have their interests aligned in different world capitals. Their children, their families, their businesses, their future jobs – everything is wired to world centres. (A profile of whose family interests lie outside Pakistan would be a fascinating study except that no one will be able to publish it here.)

Which lobby will prevail? Only time will tell. Which group will survive this battle of giant interests? A few months wait will bring us answers. But one thing is for sure: this battle will be bloody and, not because the groups in Pakistan have so much fire in their bellies but because the global stakes of what happens in Pakistan are very high.

We need to remember that in the 18th and 19th centuries  the British fought 30 wars to keep their sea route from Africa to India safe. The First World War was a trade routes and colonies war.

Since then wars are conducted through proxies and agents. In modern times, the US has interfered in almost 80 elections around the world to secure its own interests. Washington has fought two dozen wars (on other soils) and has caused displacement of millions from their homes to ensure that it retains its strategic advantages, which inevitably involve keeping oil supplies and markets safe.

Global interests will keep the times in Pakistan interesting. There will not be a moment of stability in this land because of its geography. With this in mind, see it from the Chinese point of view: they may conclude that the uproar in Pakistan is not about Panama: it is about China.

Twitter: @TalatHussain12

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...