India - China: Relations And Developments

12-23-2004, 02:52 AM

India to Be the New Big Kid in China's Block

01-19-2005, 07:00 AM

01-28-2005, 02:22 AM

02-20-2005, 11:06 PM

China Issues Protest Over U.S.-Japan Agreement 

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, February 20, 2005; 10:10 AM

BEIJING, Feb. 20 -- China issued a stiff protest Sunday over an updated U.S.-Japanese strategic agreement, saying its reference to Taiwan violates China's national sovereignty and its criticism of China's military buildup is "untenable."

The complaint, issued by the Foreign Ministry, reflected deep concern in the Beijing government over Japan's evolving decision to lean toward closer security cooperation with the United States in East Asia, including Taiwan. Although Japan has not spelled out what military assistance it might provide, to Chinese ears the accord sounded like a promise to help the United States defend Taiwan in the event of war.

"The statement included the Taiwan issue, which relates to China's sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security," said Kong Quan, the chief ministry spokesman. "The Chinese government and people strongly oppose this statement."

03-05-2005, 11:49 AM

China to boost military budget by 12.6 pct, cut size of armed forces

BEIJING (AFX) - China will boost its national defence spending by 12.6 pct this
year and move ahead with plans to reduce the size of the military, said Jiang Enzhu, spokesman of the National People's Congress.

He said that total defence spending would reach 247.7 bln yuan under the budget to be presented at parliament's annual session.

"The figure is very low compared to other major powers," he told reporters at a news conference.

He said that China would cut its military foces by 200,000 though he gave no precise timetable for that reduction or say what total troop strength would be afterwards.

Jiang also said that the cuts would help fund higher wages and an ongoing modernization of the People's Liberation Army as well as cover retirement costs

03-05-2005, 11:54 AM

Naresh · (This post was last modified: 03-05-2005, 04:12 PM by Naresh.)

Mudy,

CHINA TO INCREASE MILITARY SPENDING BY 12.6% IN 2005

BEIJING: China is expected to increase its military expenditure by 12.6 percent this year, sources said, as it boosts its capability of using force to reunify rival Taiwan.

The rise in spending comes with Washington voicing concern that China's military build-up could tilt the strategic balance with Taiwan and also threaten US forces in Asia.

In his budget report to the upcoming annual session of the National People's Congress, Finance Minister Jin Renqing is expected to propose raising military spending in 2005 to 244.65 billion yuan (US$29.5 billion), sources said.

China's stated military budget has increased by double digits over most of the last 15 years with defense spending rising by more than 17 percent in 2001 and 2002.

It fell to a 9.6 percent clip in 2003 before rising again to 11.6 percent last year.

According to the US Central Intelligence Agency, China's publicised military budget is "less than half of China's actual defense spending."

Other military analysts say China's actual defense spending could be up to three times more than its stated figure as Beijing does not include new arms purchases and weapons' research and development in the figures.

By comparison, the US defence budget is about US$400 billion this year, while Japan's is about US$47 billion.

The rise in spending comes as the European Union considers the lifting of an arms embargo on China put in place following the 1989 military crackdown on the Tiananmen democracy protests in central Beijing.

The US has been adamantly opposed to the ban being lifted.

In a white paper on defense published in December, China said its ongoing military modernization was aimed at squashing "Taiwan independence forces" and made clear any attempt at independence would be harshly dealt with.

"Should the Taiwan authorities go so far as to make a reckless attempt that constitutes a major incident of Taiwan independence, the Chinese people and armed forces will resolutely and thoroughly crush it at any cost," the policy paper said.

The document said it was the "sacred responsibility" of the Chinese armed forces to stop Taiwan independence forces from splitting the country.

China already has 600 missiles pointed at the island, from which it split in 1949 at the end of a civil war. - AFP

B T W : A large part of the P L A has been re-designated and one of the ânamesâ is the âXinjiang Building Corpsâ whereby China has about Two Million âBuilding Corpsâ personnel stationed in Xinjaing with their Families so as to Dilute the Muslim Majority and also to ensure a âFightingâ Response should the Islamic Ujghuir intensify their opposition to Chinese âHanâ Rule

03-05-2005, 09:40 PM

QUOTEOther military analysts say China's actual defense spending could be up to three times more than its stated figure as Beijing does not include new arms purchases and weapons' research and development in the figures. 
India spend less then budget allocation, most of budget goes in salary. If Political babus get full hand they will leave zero provision for defense and will ask forces to go near border and burn candle with "Hum sabh bhai bhai" song in background.

narayanan · 03-11-2005, 03:11 AM

So we are not imagining things. All the more reason to expose FOIL, AID, ASHA

QUOTEQuote:
In the following article Ambassasdor Parthasarathy calls a spade a spade!

The Communist parties in India (after the collapse of the Soviet Union) now advocate national security and foreign policies that will not only weaken our national defence, but also effectively make us a protectorate and client state of China.

I think India needs to be extraordinarily vigilant against these dangerous lobbyists for China. The US faces its own quota of equally dangerous pro-China lobbyists -- but they happen to be some of the powerful business corporations and the politicians backing them or who have shut their eyes!

Ram Narayanan
US India Friendship
http://www.usindiafriendship.net

Quote:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050310/edit.htm#4

THE TRIBUNE ONLINE EDITION, MARCH 10, 2005

Leftâs unkindly cut
It is ignoring the threat to security
by G. Parthasarathy

THE Communist parties in India cannot be accused of inconsistency. They have a track record of advocating foreign and national security policies designed to make India a surrogate or protectorate of one or another external power. Throughout the years of the Cold War, the CPI took its directions from Moscow and wanted India to follow a policy of strident criticism of the US and the western world. This line continued till the mutual dislike between Mao and Stalin led to a widening Sino-Soviet rift.

When China and the USSR parted ways, the Communist movement in India split. The CPM adopted a posture of equidistance between the two squabbling Communist giants, with strident rhetoric against the western world. The CPI became anti-Chinese when the Sino-Soviet rift was at its height after the military clashes across the Ussuri river in 1969. The CPM, in turn, had little to say when Nixon and Mao embraced each other and formed a Sino-US axis directed against India during the Bangladesh crisis in 1971. Both Communist parties could not hide their embarrassment and discomfiture when in February 1979 China, with American backing, attacked a âfraternalâ communist country Vietnam that had earlier concluded a Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union.

The Communist parties in India have faced similar dilemmas after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They now advocate national security and foreign policies that will not only weaken our national defence, but also effectively make us a protectorate and client state of China. During the general election last year, the CPM found fault with the NDA government for supporting the US in its âwar on Afghanistanâ Was the CPM thereby suggesting that we would have been better off with continued Taliban rule and the presence of Osama bin Laden and Pakistani terrorist groups like the Jaish-e-Mohammed and the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen operating in Afghanistan?

The Communist parties have called for an end to all military cooperation with the US and Israel. Are they suggesting that while it is alright for their comrades in Beijing to continue weapons procurement from Israel, we should deny our soldiers essential electronic sensors from Israel to check infiltration from across the LoC? Similarly, is it the Communist viewpoint that our artillery should make do without the US-supplied gun-locating radars while the Pakistanis lob heavy artillery shells across the LoC? Have any family members of our Communist leaders ever served in frontline military formations and faced bullets and artillery shells fired from across the border?

While Communist rhetoric on its âfraternal tiesâ with Chinaâs Communist Party could be taken with amusement, one cannot ignore their total silence on the collusion and collaboration between China and Pakistan on nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. By advocating the âdenuclearisationâ of South Asia, our Communist friends are suggesting that we should abandon our long-standing policy of keeping our nuclear options open, while expressing our readiness to pursue the goal of universal and comprehensive nuclear disarmament. âDenuclearisationâ of South Asia has been a long-term goal of both the US and China as this would, in effect, involve our acceding to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by the backdoor.

China has demanded that we should renounce our nuclear programme, dismantle our nuclear weapons and end all testing, development and deployment of missiles. While swearing adherence to the NPT, China has supplied Pakistan with unsafeguarded facilities for plutonium reprocessing, designs of nuclear weapons, components for Pakistanâs nuclear enrichment programme and M 11, M 9 and M 18 missiles that have now given Pakistan the capability to target every major population centre in India. In these circumstances any talk of âdenuclearisationâ that excludes China is meaningless. The US National Intelligence Council has assessed that thanks to Chinese missile supplies, Pakistan has developed an edge over India in strategic nuclear delivery systems. Despite this, our communist friends oppose our acquiring missile defence systems to protect our cities against nuclear-tipped missiles of Chinese origin!

While our Communist parties cannot now âroll backâ our nuclear and missile programmes (an objective they share with the erstwhile Clinton Administration), what is of immediate concern are the pressures being mounted by our Left parties to reduce defence expenditure. During pre-Budget consultations, the Communist parties had suggested a drastic reduction in defence expenditure from the level of Rs 77000 crore spent in 2004-2005. India presently spends less than 2.5 per cent of the GDP on defence, even though the Eleventh Finance Commission had advocated a target of 3 per cent of the GDP for defence spending. China and Pakistan spend well over 4 per cent of the GDP on defence. Chinese defence expenditure is to increase by 12.6 per cent this year.

China is rapidly expanding the logistical capabilities of its armed forces in Tibet. China remains a major supplier of defence equipment to Pakistan. It will soon provide Pakistan with scores of âjointly developedâ JF 17 fighters for which engine designs of the frontline MIG 29 have been purloined from Russia. The âAl Khalidâ tank being built in Rawalpindi is of Chinese origin. General Musharraf recently indicated that he would not hesitate to provide base facilities to the Chinese navy in the Gwadar Port. China is reported to have agreed to strengthen Pakistanâs naval muscle by the provision of new frigates.

Indiaâs historical experience has unfortunately been that our neighbours invariably take advantage of situations when reduced defence spending results in our defence potential being weakened. China made bold to humiliate us in 1962 primarily because our armed forces were starved with minimal defence budgets and our soldiers did not even possess winter clothing and automatic rifles to confront superior numbers and firepower.

Field Marshal Ayub Khan tried his luck with us in 1965 because he was emboldened by American military assistance and Chinese political support. He failed primarily because we unexpectedly hit across the international border. Between 1965 and 1990 defence spending steadily increased and neither China, Pakistan nor any other regional power could take us for granted. It was only after 1990 that defence expenditure steadily fell and we lost the strategic edge that we had over Pakistan for over three decades. The net result was that Pakistan was emboldened to attempt its intrusion in Kargil.

Experience has thus taught us that maintaining a qualitative edge over our neighbours is essential for peace in our neighbourhood. Weapons we acquired three decades ago from the Soviet Union are now obsolete. There are a number of pending acquisitions, including multi-barrelled rocket launchers, artillery, advanced fighters, submarines and warships that we need in the immediate future. These acquisitions cannot be further delayed if we are to guarantee our security and remain a credible power in our Indian Ocean neighbourhood.

Our Communist friends would do well to remember that the gross subsidies given to Indiaâs loss-making, corrupt and inefficient State Electricity Boards in 2004-2005 are estimated to be over Rs. 34,000 crore. These subsidies are expected to grow by over 12 per cent annually. If we are unable to fund our anti-poverty and social development programmes adequately it is not because our defence expenditure is high, but because our politicians prefer populism over efficiency and avoid reforming corrupt delivery systems in our social and anti-poverty programmes.

Naresh · 03-12-2005, 06:51 AM

MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN CHINA BANKS, US$ 50 BILLION MISSING

BEIJING : China's banking system is not only awash with debt but loopholes in its supervisory system have allowed 4,000 officials to flee with 50 billion dollars in cash.

"The current loopholes in China's system of financial supervision is the main reason for the success of corrupt officials in taking a large amount of funds overseas," Zhang Xiao, former head of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, said at the ongoing meeting of the National People's Congress or parliament on Friday.

Under existing banking rules, companies can open up numerous accounts in many different banks, making it easy for corrupt officials to launder money and send capital overseas, Zhang was quoted by the Beijing Morning Post as saying.

"At present, the way that enterprises wantonly open up accounts is still very serious, many enterprises have several accounts in many banks; this makes it difficult for financial supervision organs to grasp the situation of capital flight in a timely manner," Zhang said.

"Many corrupt officials and other criminals use company accounts to hide transfers and illegal income."

According to a report by Ministry of Commerce, some 4,000 officials have successfully fled with 50 billion dollars in illicit cash as of early 2005, the newspaper said.

The most recent case concerned Gao Shan, an official at the Hesong branch of the Bank of China in northeastern Heilongjiang province, who fled overseas after secretly transferring out of the country 120 million dollars this year, the newspaper recalled.

"The Heilongjiang case is a good example of how they used many different banks to transfer funds which weren't discovered in a timely fashion," Zhang said.

"If this had happened within the Bank of China system itself, the illegal transfer of large sums of money probably would have been discovered."

The bank supervisory system also does not allow for timely sharing of information between different banks, Zhang said. 

"This situation has provided for 'moles' within the banking system to actively seek out corrupt officials and provide them with convenient methods for criminal activities using the state banking system to funnel large sums of illegal funds outside the country."

The Chinese banking system also suffers from huge non-performing loans, including 1.4 trillion yuan (170 billion dollars) shifted to four asset management companies created six years ago.

Bringing down this mountain of bad debt has become an urgent task for China as it seeks to prepare its largest banks for overseas share sales, making them as attractive as possible to potential foreign investors.

In late 2003, China injected a total of 45 billion dollars into two of its four largest state-owned commercial banks, Bank of China and China Construction Bank, as part of the lenders' restructuring programmes.

China is better equipped than ever for this kind of financial first aid with foreign exchange reserves in 2004 soaring to a record 609.9 billion dollars from 403.3 billion dollars in 2003.
- AFP

03-15-2005, 09:48 AM

Trust desis to go gaga over this..

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.ph...~border~dispute

QUOTE Beijing: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao today quoted extensively from the Upanishads in his speech. Wen quoted the Sariraka Upanishad to discount the theory that China and India are rivals and not friends: ââMay he protect us both together; may he nourish us both together; may we work conjointly with great energy, may our study be vigorous and effective; May we not hate any; let there be peace, let there be peace, let there be peace!ââ âPTI

03-31-2005, 09:01 AM

Pioneer Oped
QUOTEThe peaceful rise of China 
Claude Arpi
The Chinese are fond of new slogans. Mao had his "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts flourish", Deng had his "Four Modernisations" and Jiang Zemin "the Three Represents". Hu Jintao and his Fourth Generation colleagues coined a new slogan: "The Peaceful Rise of China."

In April 2004, Xinhua News Agency explained: "The 'Peaceful Rise' notion indicates China has chosen an unprecedented development(al) road different from one ever walked by other countries that rose in the last few centuries."

During the annual Bo'ao Asia forum held in Hainan province in 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao used the word 'peace' 11 times in his inaugural speech. According to Xinhua News Agency, it was a way to answer "the people who may be truly worried for genuine reasons and those who may just want to advocate (the) 'China threat' for other motives."

Do not worry about the 'rise', says Beijing: "It will take time for China to be a real big power." It would take China 40-50 years to reach the level of development of the United States. Beijing believes that the 'China threat theory' was started in the US "to make sure no one can challenge [US] dominance in the 21st century."

However, for us in India, this 'peaceful rise' sounds like a new avatar of the Panchsheel policy: "The idea that the world, including other major counties, can live side by side with a rising giant as a peaceful partner to do business with, not a big bully for others to contain or fear for."

The trigger to the new Chinese slogan was probably a report 'Indo-US Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions' commissioned by the Pentagon and released in early 2004. According to the department of defence analysts, the US and India should be forging a long-term defence and security alliance aimed at containing China: "China represents the most significant threat to both countries' security in the future as well as an economic and military competitor."

During the annual session of the National People's Congress, Chinese Finance Minister Jin Renqing presented his Ministry's budget. He announced that he proposed to raise military spending in 2005 to 244.65 billion yuan ($29.5 billion). This represents a 12.6 per cent increase over the previous year.

Over the last 15 years, most of China's 'official' military budgets have increased by double digits. In 2001 and 2002, defence spending rose by some 17 per cent.

Furthermore, if one is to believe the CIA, China's 'official' military budget is "less than half of China's actual defence spending". Some defence analysts consider that China's actual defence spending could be up to three times more than its 'official' figure. They state that Beijing does not include new arms purchases as well as research and development in new weaponry.

For India, the most important aspect of China's hidden budget is the railway line to Lhasa which will tremendously improve of China's capacity in case of a conflict with India. The Chinese openly declared that the railway was meant to 'strengthen their borders'.

In a white paper on defence published in December 2004, China had explained that the on-going military modernisation was aimed at squashing "Taiwan independence forces". Already at that time, Beijing made clear that any attempt at independence would be dealt with militarily: "Should the Taiwan authorities go so far as to make a reckless attempt that constitutes a major incident of Taiwan independence, the Chinese people and armed forces will resolutely and thoroughly crush it at any cost." For Beijing, it was China's "sacred responsibility to stop Taiwan independence forces from splitting the country".

Since then, China has passed a legislation to officially authorise the Beijing Government to use force. Xinhua explained that the law is meant for "achieving national reunification through peaceful means, and taking non-peaceful means to stop Taiwan's secession from China by the 'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces". So much for the 'peaceful rise of China'.

During the same period, India had only a very marginal hike in its defence budget. Defence analyst Air Commodore Jasjit Singh commented: "The budget at Rs 83,000 crore for the next year represents an increase of 7.8 per cent over the current year. In turn, this translates into a reduction of defence expenditure as a proportion of the GDP in the current year from 2.5 per cent to an estimated 2.4 per cent for the next year."

Most of the increase will be absorbed by social sector spending commitments. It will translate into a minimal increase for overdue modernisation. Air Commodore Singh explained the budget allocation "was worrisome for the simple reason that it fails to address the crucial issue of defence modernisation adequately. For nearly two decades, (it) has been stagnating with weapons systems completing useful operational life without replacement".

With the return of the Panchsheel mood in New Delhi, nobody cares too much about China's 'rise'. The PMO is said to have circulated a non-paper prepared by the National Security Advisor for a pre-budget Cabinet meeting. It claimed that, as relations with China and Pakistan were on 'even keel', threats to India's security were reduced and, therefore, higher defence spending could be provocative. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' />Â

As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India approaches, 'friendship with China' indeed seems to deepen everyday.

Premier Wen declared during a press conference: "China and India are not rivals but friends. Both countries shall work together to tap the potential of bilateral cooperation and find a 'fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable plan' to solve the border dispute."

The 700 reporters attending the conference applauded in unison. Touched by the applause, he told the journalists: "I hope you can send my message back to the great Indian people, that we're not competitors, we are friends." And he recited a Sanskrit sloka: "May we not hate anyone. Let there be peace, let there be peace, let there be peace!"

The message about the 'peaceful rise of China' has being conveyed, particularly in Europe, where the EU is very keen to lift the arms embargo clamped on China after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

The day after the announcement of the budget, the spokesperson of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not even understand a journalist's question when the latter asked if there was any link between the military budget increase, the anti-cessation law and the lifting of the embargo.

In India, the media is happily biting the bait of Premier Wen's 'peaceful' words. As for the border issue, he wanted "a fair reasonable solution that is acceptable to both sides. It should also be found on the basis of equal-consultations, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, respect for history and accommodation of reality."

But while drafting the 'guiding principles' to solve the vexed issue, the Chinese side insisted to get 'back' parts of Arunachal Pradesh, more particularly the Tawang area. Can this be considered as a fair and peaceful solution?

In the meantime, New Delhi is creating more confusion by reviving the Joint Working Group, which according to agency reports "will discuss the issue of exchanging maps on the critical Western Sector, where 38,000 sq. km area in Aksai Chin is under Chinese occupation. If agreed, this will be a big stride forward."

After former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's 2003 visit to China, it was decided that the special representatives would look into the border issue. So why should a dual mechanism be set up? Why so many cooks

More worrisome is the railway line which will be reaching Lhasa in two years. Is this different to the massive building of roads in Tibet in the 1950's undertaken 'to liberate Tibet and protect China's Western borders'?

Let there be peace! Om Shanti!

04-04-2005, 03:04 AM

China defines its borders â Lesson for India? QUOTEWhat does the article imply for Indiaâs border discussions with China? If a multi-faceted approach, as reflected in the article,is adopted by the Chinese during the border talks, India can expect a prolonged course of negotiations with no immediate concrete result. Secondly, the apparent over-emphasis given in the write-up on the âhistoric continuityâ of the contemporary China borders, indicates the possibilities of the Chinese side continuing to quote from history while presenting their claims. Thirdly, if a piece of disputed territory is important for it in strategic and military sense, the PRCâs position on such area could be uncompromising duringÂ talks. Specifically on disputed territories in Eastern Sector including Tawang, the Chinese may apply theÂ âhistoricâ approach in open, with âstrategic interestâ in the back of their minds. The article, in essence, reflects the traditional Chinese position of always being territorially ambitious. As such, Premier Wenâs new âaccommodation of realityâ approach needs to be studied carefully by India for its practical implications.Â Â Â

04-06-2005, 04:53 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 4 2005, 03:04 AM)China defines its borders â Lesson for India? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTEWhat does the article imply for Indiaâs border discussions with China? If a multi-faceted approach, as reflected in the article,is adopted by the Chinese during the border talks, India can expect a prolonged course of negotiations with no immediate concrete result. Secondly, the apparent over-emphasis given in the write-up on the âhistoric continuityâ of the contemporary China borders, indicates the possibilities of the Chinese side continuing to quote from history while presenting their claims. Thirdly, if a piece of disputed territory is important for it in strategic and military sense, the PRCâs position on such area could be uncompromising duringÂ talks. Specifically on disputed territories in Eastern Sector including Tawang, the Chinese may apply theÂ âhistoricâ approach in open, with âstrategic interestâ in the back of their minds. The article, in essence, reflects the traditional Chinese position of always being territorially ambitious. As such, Premier Wenâs new âaccommodation of realityâ approach needs to be studied carefully by India for its practical implications.Â Â Â </div>
Chinese pact with Nepal irks India

China"s decision to end India"s UN seat hopes

Keshto council has already ruled UNSC seat OUT for Indians who are target of International conspricy by US-UK-China.

04-06-2005, 05:10 AM

QUOTEKeshto council has already ruled UNSC seat OUT for Indians who are target of International conspricy by US-UK-China. 
I agree with International Keshto council. It is useless for India.

04-07-2005, 03:28 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 6 2005, 05:10 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEKeshto council has already ruled UNSC seat OUT for Indians who are target of International conspricy by US-UK-China. 
I agree with International Keshto council. It is useless for India.</div>
Mr. Mudy you are awfully misguided here (on this issue) if you say that UNSC seat is useless for Indians.

But before we go further, pls tell me that is it not possible for US-UK mafia to start a mischeif on kashmir issue favouring pakistan by introducing a resolution with a binding effect?

If so, what would India do?

If it were a useless entity for Indians, do you think US would bring roadblocks against it for Indians?

Can you imagin India with VETO power?

04-07-2005, 04:40 AM

QUOTEBut before we go further, pls tell me that is it not possible for US-UK mafia to start a mischeif on kashmir issue favouring pakistan by introducing a resolution with a binding effect?

They are doing it for last 50 plus years. Its part of new Great Game. UNSC without veto is useless. Country club membership without enterance pass is waste.

World knows Indian leadership is weak at this moment. So they may pull some stunt to deny UNSC or it will be without veto.

QUOTECan you imagin India with VETO power? 
Yes, I can imagine, I don't think US want nagging mistress nextdoor. So India may get Non Veto enterance.

04-07-2005, 05:00 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 7 2005, 04:40 AM) <div class='quotetop'>QUOTEBut before we go further, pls tell me that is it not possible for US-UK mafia to start a mischeif on kashmir issue favouring pakistan by introducing a resolution with a binding effect?

They are doing it for last 50 plus years. Its part of new Great Game. UNSC without veto is useless. Country club membership without enterance pass is waste.

World knows Indian leadership is weak at this moment. So they may pull some stunt to deny UNSC or it will be without veto. </div>
Sir ji.

There are two modalities that have surfaced thus far with representatives from 16 countries (nambiar from India-Primakov from russia-Brent Scowcroft US included) and both modalities have no inclusion of VETO because among the gang of four there is one aspirant by the name of India who should be restricted lock stock n barrel. Had it been for only 3 countries without India, you would have seen VETO for them.

Well. If there is no VETO on the table, thats fine, nothing can be done as of now, but lets grab the permamnent membership. Something even saner countries like Japan n germany have agreed to.

Think this, If India declines this (as the west wants it) then other 3 get on board and would be given VETO in couple of years with consensus, and India permamnenltly sitting out of the loop.

This is mortal step for India which would be left out for ever.

Think this.

Why UK-France dont want to relinquish their seat in favour of one EU entity as proposed by Italy?

Its a privlege to kill any resolution of international importance even at its arrival on the desk with VETO threat.

VETO is a legal international fang of these countries who are not accountable with such luxary and their nukes.

Such is the nature of this international power matrix where India lacks big time due to chacha nehru who declined it at san francisco aniversory of it (UNO).

Naresh · (This post was last modified: 04-10-2005, 05:52 AM by Naresh.)

From : The Economist â A Subscription Site :

CHINA

THE SILENT MAJORITY

<img src='http://www.economist.com/images/20050409/1505AS1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

A rare look inside a Chinese village

Get article background

IN A country where 800m people, about 60% of the population, live in the countryside on an average income of less than a dollar a day, rural backwardness weighs heavily on the minds of China's leaders as they dream of joining the ranks of the world's leading economies. And in a country whose Communist Party came to power on the back of a peasant rebellion, distant memories of the vehemence of rural discontent arouse fears that unless something is done to make peasants happier, China will be plunged into turmoil. To assess China's future, it is crucial to understand the countryside. But it is not easy.

Despite China's increasing openness to prying foreign eyes, the dynamics of village life remain hidden away. Although the Chinese media report extensively on rural problems, foreign journalists require government approval to conduct interviews in the countryside (as indeed, in theory, they do for any off-base reporting in China). Foreign correspondents can often get away with conducting unauthorised interviews in the more cosmopolitan urban areas, but rural officials invoke the rules with far greater regularity, fearful that critical press reports could damage their careers. The presence in a village of any outsider asking sensitive questions can quickly arouse official attention and often results in detention, the confiscation of notes and other materials, and orders to leave the area immediately.

China tries democracy at village level 

Your correspondent originally asked the government of Shandong province for permission to stay in a village he had visited with official approval in the 1980s, but was turned down. Instead, the authorities selected the village of Beihe in Zouping, a prosperous county that was designated by China in the late 1980s as an area (then almost the only one) open to American researchers to do fieldwork. It still delights in its propaganda role. Zouping's brochure calls the county âa window for the US and the whole world to get an understandingâ of the countryside. Yan Shengqin, Beihe's party chief at the time, still proudly displays a framed picture of Jimmy Carter with an arm around Mr Yan's shoulders during a visit in 1997.

Beihe's 1,000 villagers enjoy a net income per head of around 5,000 yuan ($600) a yearâabout 70% more than the national average and 40% more than the average for Zouping. It has more than 30 privately owned factories in activities from iron forging to furniture making. Peasants here say they would prefer to keep their rural-residence certificates, a relic of a once-rigid urban-rural apartheid system in China that barred peasants from moving to the cities. Now they are allowed to migrate more freely. But while the urban social-security system is in tatters, most country-dwellers are still entitled to farm (not to own) a small patch of land that can at least keep them from starving. Beihe's villagers prefer to stay putâunlike tens of millions of other peasants for whom even the insecurity and hardship of urban life is better than rural poverty.

Beihe's mobile-phone-owning peasants in their newly built courtyard homes with cable television and (in the case of at least 20 households) private cars may not be the best-placed people to give insights into the rural deprivation and injustice that have prompted a growing number of peasants to head to big cities in recent years to petition the authorities. (Even model Zouping had 603 such peasants in 2002 and 338 in 2003, compared with none at the beginning of the decade, according to county records.) Even so, the village does illustrate how sweeping economic and political changes in the past quarter-century have made China's villages far more independent from higher authority. They have also become far more dependent for their success or failure on the abilities of their own local leaders. In Beihe, as in many of China's 700,000 villages, ancient clans have played an important part in both of these changes.

The Zhang-Yan clans

The revival of village clannism is among the party's many worries about its grip on rural stability. In Beihe, more than half of the villagers share the surname Zhang. Among the rest, Yan is the biggest clan. The Yans and Zhangs live in distinct areas of the village. Yan Shengqin, the former party chief, happens to be one of the most senior within his clan's patrilineal hierarchy. It is to him, he says, that Yans turn to help sort out family disputes or officiate at weddings or funerals. Kim Falk, of America's Carnegie Mellon University, who spent 18 months in Beihe in the early 1990s, says relations between Zhangs and Yans appeared harmonious, as they do today. But it is easy to see how in other villages clan loyaltiesâas sometimes reported in the Chinese pressâlead to bitter feuding between clans and struggles for control of village leadership jobs.

The dismantling of Chairman Mao's âpeople's communesâ in the early 1980s allowed villages to re-emerge as independent economic units. Clans acquired a renewed interest in taking control. China's promotion of elections for the post of village head in the 1990s made it easier for them to do so. And more recent moves to have one person act as both village head and party chief have made it easier still.

Although Beihe began directly electing its village head a decade ago (and sure enough it was always Zhangs who won), the party chief, Mr Yan, was still the man in charge. This system of having separate elected and party-appointed leaders has caused widespread power struggles in villages, and nearly caused friction in Beihe. In 1999, a wealthy private businessman and member of a senior Zhang clan family, Zhang Fanggeng, was elected village head. Villagers knew that he had had a prickly relationship with Mr Yan. Some peasants who disliked Mr Yan had voted for Mr Zhang hoping that this would stir up a feud. âSome people said that within a month, there'd definitely be quite a showâ between the two men, Mr Zhang later said in a report to higher officials.

Intervention from officials in Xidong township, to which Beihe belongs, as well as Mr Zhang's own common sense (struggling with the party is rarely a winning move), helped keep these tensions in check. Last year, the Shandong party leadership ordered that next time the province held village elections, ways should be found to ensure that the posts of party chief and village head be held by the same person in more than 80% of villages. Achieving this has involved allowing villagers for the first time to vote for the top party posts as well. The village party committee would still have the final say, but would generally pick the party member ârecommendedâ by the most villagers as party chief. This person would also be appointed village leader. Last December in Beihe, Mr Zhang, who had conveniently joined the party, was a shoo-in for both jobs. His votes, tallied up in chalk on a garage door, are still on display.

The last collective

Now in full command of the village, Mr Zhang has the task of untangling one of the knottiest problems left by Mr Yanâthe fate of Beihe's malt factory, whose dour concrete faÃ§ade dominates the village skyline of closely clustered houses surrounded by an expanse of fields. Once the mainstay of the village's economy, the factory is idle. Of its more than 200 workers, only its guard remains on duty. The village is hoping a private investor will take it off its hands, but it would take a courageous soul to do so with its 5m yuan of debt and a market for malt now dominated by bigger, better-quality producers.

The malt factory is the last relic of the collectively owned industrial complex that was once Beihe. As party chief, Mr Yan had used his networking skills and business acumen to follow the example of many villages around China in setting up enterprises that were owned and operated by the village. Mr Yan himself acted as manager of the malt factory. These were, in effect, state-owned enterprises and suffered the same problemsâbloated workforces, inefficient management and a poor understanding of risk. As long as state-owned banks were willing to lend and local officials helped them secure markets, they could prosper. In Beihe they helped transform what had been a village of mud brick and thatch in the 1970s into a community of spacious concrete dwellings that many an urban resident would envy (apart from the primitive lavatories).

But tougher lending rules and fiercer competition in recent years have forced villages to close or privatise most of their collective businesses. This may mean Mr Zhang has a quieter time than Mr Yan (who though retired from village duties is now the general manager of a township fertiliser factory). Ms Falk says that in the early 1990s a constant stream of business delegations from around the country visited the malt factory. The road into the village thundered with malt-laden trucks. Now the village, like many others in China, has changed from conglomerate to real-estate dealer, trading on its one remaining commodity, its land.

With no more revenue from collective industries, the village's income is made up almost entirely of land rent paid by the privately owned factories. Beihe has recently decided to rent out a large tract of farmland to private investors to turn into a driving school and an auto-parts factory. The peasants who had used the land to grow wheat and corn are being compensated according to how much they would have earned from these crops. This is a meagre sum, it is true; but since they do not own the land and most of them have jobs in the private factories, they are not complaining. Millions of other peasants in China who have been turfed off the land in recent years by villages eager to profit from developers are far less happy.

Beihe's bet is that the success of private industry in the area will boost incomes and with it demand for cars. More car owners will mean more demand for driving schools such as the one being built in the village (in China, learner drivers are not allowed on roads). A rosy future, perhaps. If only Beihe were more typical

This is mind-blowing indeed. Indiaâs âUnder the Poverty Line Populationâ i.e. on an average income of less than a dollar a day is about 26% i.e. about 275 Million.

According to this article in China 800m people, about 60% of the population, live in the countryside on an average income of less than a dollar a day. This is about Three times Indiaâs number of people living under the Poverty Line.

If Beihe's 1,000 villagers enjoy a net income per head of around 5,000 yuan ($600) a yearâabout 70% more than the national average it means that the Chinese National Per Capita Income is only USD 600 / 1.7 i.e. USD 353. This is of course difficult to believe.

Cheers <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />

Naresh · (This post was last modified: 04-11-2005, 06:37 PM by Naresh.)

INDIA NEEDS TO GIVE UP ITS LEGAL CLAIM TO AKSAI CHIN IN THE HOPE THAT CHINA WILL GIVE UP ITS ILLEGAL CLAIM ON ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Well Done Nehru-Gandhi Family. Indians are going to love the Kangress Kammunist Kriminal Klan for this âGiftâ. INDIA GIVES â CHINA TAKES.

NEW ROCKY ROAD MAPPED TO SINO-INDIAN PEACE

NEW DELHI: China's official map showing Sikkim as part of India may not be an entirely new story.

But on Monday when the Chinese side handed over their official map with Sikkim clearly shown as part of India, it symbolised the new-found urgency in both India and China to settle the simmering border dispute at the earliest.

But it is not an easy task.

For the Republic of India and Peoples' Republic of China there is nothing more troublesome than their borders - hilly, snow-covered, inhibited, desolate and so full of mistrust and reminders of the bloody 1962 war.

Born out of the 'Great Game' between the British Empire and Russia centuries back, it is now left to the two Asian giants to draw permanent borders of friendship.

After several rounds of consultations and Premier Wen Jiabao's meetings with Indian leadership in New Delhi on Monday, the two sides said, they were ready to "seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution, through equal and friendly consultations and proceeding from the overall interests of bilateral relations."

The two sides said they are "convinced that an early settlement of the boundary question will advance the basic interests of the two countries and should therefore be pursued as a strategic objective".

Officials say the present level of understanding gives a more dependable means to speed up the process of resolving the border dispute.

National Security Advisor MK Narayanan and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo, both special representatives of their respective governments for discussing border issue, on Sunday put in place guiding principles for resolving the issue.

Over the past few decades the two countries have been taking progressive steps to resolve the dispute: first putting in place agreements to maintain peace along the border, then having consultations at senior levels.

In 1980, China offered a dramatic resolution to the border dispute but India turned it down. From Karakoram pass to the India-Tibet-Myanmar tri-junction, it is a complex border that would require several rounds of careful negotiations.

By 1995, the Sino-Indian Joint Working Group identified eight pockets of dispute where the two sides had different perspectives of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

But the dispute is much bigger, and confusing.

Western Sector (Ladakh)

The snow-covered Ladakh witnessed some of the fiercest fights between Indian forces and the Chinese military waves that descended on them in 1962.

The cease-fire left many areas of dispute in the Ladakh region. India accuses China of occupying 38,000 square kilometers of icy heights called Aksai Chin, and some 5180 square kilometers of Kashmir gifted by Pakistan to China in 1963.

The cold, barren stretches on paper became India's because the British maps of 1865, based on an alignment proposed by a surveyer WH Johnson was included as part of British empire and 'handed over' to India.

Both India and China have traditionally agreed to two points in the sector- Karakoram Pass and Demchok, which are the two ends of the sector. Dispute lies in between.

While India believes the border is along what Johnson drew, China traditionally has sighted MacCartney-Macdonald line, which show most of Aksai Chin outside Indian territory.

A solution in all possibility would require India to give up its claims over Aksai Chin and the area gifted by Pakistan, because that is the only way for India to get Chinese concessions in northeast.

China cannot be expected to give up its claims over Aksai Chin which provides the strategic link between Tibet and Xinjiang provices.

Eastern Sector (Arunachal Pradesh)

China on record claims 90,000 square kilometers of land in the area, which comprise almost the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh.

India created Arunachal Pradesh as a separate state in 1987, from Assam. China calls it the South Tibet, and refuses to recognise Arunachal Pradesh.

It is a position that Indian officials expect China to relent if India were to recognize Aksai Chin and Pakistan gifted portion of Kashmir as part of China. China has already relented on Sikkim. 

If there is any area in the entire disputed borders that is troublesome it is Arunachal Pradesh. In 1986-87 the two sides clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh. But the situation has improved. Still there is a long way to go for the two sides.

Already the two sides are working towards taking the border contacts beyond mere military flag meetings between junior military leaders. The Nathula Pass in Sikkim, part of the famed Silk route, would be open to trade in the near future.

It would lead to booming trade contact between Tibet and Sikkim, and could in the long run allow Tibet access beyond just Sikkim and into sea. There are a few other traditional points of trade along the Sino-Indian border.

Officials say those also would open up. For now it appears that the two sides seek to synergize their strengths to take on the world rather than each other.

Middle Sector (Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal)

Least disputed of all sectors.

The two sides have exchanged their respective maps of the middle sector, which covers Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal.

Officials say there are no big disputes to be settled. One official said the only area of dispute between the two sides is a place called Barahoti.

After handing 38,000 Square Kilometres to China the Kangress Kammunist Kriminal Klan can hand over as much of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?