November 6, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Conflict

India And China, The New Great Game

December 13, 2011 By 1 Comment

By Andrew North on BBC South Asia correspondent

”China to open first military base in Indian Ocean.” Nothing to worry about, says the defence ministry in Beijing.

The base – in the Seychelles – is just for supplying passing Chinese navy ships. But seen from Delhi, it is another move in what a former Indian defence minister has called China’s policy of “strategic encirclement”.

Even as Indian diplomats insist they want “cordial ties”, tensions are rising everywhere between the two giant Asian neighbours, in what looks increasingly like a new “great game” – with the US and other powers upping their stakes. Willliam Burns, America’s number two diplomat, is in Delhi this week to try to rekindle relations after a period of stagnation, and a stalled deal on nuclear co-operation. Next week, Washington hosts diplomats from India and Japan for a first ever “trilateral dialogue” of the “three leading Pacific democracies”.

An increasingly assertive China is clearly their main focus. The Great Game was a term coined for the shadowy battle for influence and control in central Asia between Russia and the British empire. Yet even as the latest round plays out in Afghanistan, this new and less-noticed Asian great game could be of far greater global importance – and pose more dangers.

It is already provoking regular media hostilities, the Chinese papers lashing out at India as “jealous” of China’s success, after the former Indian defence minister’s broadside. While playing down the chances of real conflict, a senior Indian diplomat admits: “There is a trust and a perception deficit” between the two.

Nearly 50 years after they fought a brief border war, Delhi and Beijing still cannot agree on much of their nearly 4,000km (2,500 miles) of frontier, with an arms race happening on both sides. A regular border meeting was recently cancelled because of disagreements over another frequent irritant in the relationship – the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, who lives under Indian protection. This is bound to be an “adversarial” relationship, says Shyam Saran, India’s foreign secretary until last year. But what he calls China’s “hierarchical’ outlook” makes it more difficult. “It wants to be on top, maybe not to dominate territory, but to have veto power over any of its neighbours’ policies it doesn’t like.” ‘Cheque-book diplomacy’, just like the original great game, this is a battle on many fronts, being fought with aid, investment, politics and culture – from Pakistan (a long-time Chinese ally) to Nepal, and across South East Asia. But paradoxically, part of the reason for relations “getting more complicated” is “because they are getting closer”, says Jonathan Holslag, a China expert at the Brussels Institute of Contemporary Studies.

Trade between India and China is expanding, but it is imbalanced in China’s favour. And with its greater economic weight, it is going “all out in its cheque-book diplomacy”, says Mr Holslag, with India struggling to compete. But while it could not stop the Seychelles hosting China’s new base, India drew the line earlier this year when Nepal – landlocked between the two giants – contemplated accepting $3bn (£2bn) worth of Chinese investment. But China already has firm foundations there, recently upgrading the Friendship Highway across the Himalayas between Kathmandu and Lhasa in Tibet. Work is now under way on a railway link, with nothing comparable from the Indian side. “Start Quote The US still appears unable to decide whether to treat India as a partner… as far as technology matters are concerned.”

Senior Indian diplomat China is years ahead of India in building up transport links along their disputed frontier, giving it a head start in moving troops if there is another war. US factor Yet from Beijing’s point of view, India is helping in what it perceives as an emerging US policy of containment. Next week’s meeting will only heighten these suspicions, coming soon after US President Barack Obama’s announced plans to send US marines to Australia’s northern coast – facing China.

Beijing chafes at Indian oil companies encroaching on what it regards as its backyard in the South China sea. Indian officials though play down an incident in the summer when a Chinese ship is reported to have warned an Indian ship to leave the area. There is no question of India being used as “a cat’s paw” by the US, according to the senior Indian diplomat. And despite better ties, India remains cautious about how close it gets to Washington, says Mr Saran, because of a perception that it is still not willing to share enough. “The US still appears unable to decide whether to treat India as a partner… as far as technology matters are concerned,” he says.

Watering down nationalism

That both India and China are now nuclear-armed helps concentrate minds against war. Along their border, the most likely flashpoint, things have been quiet for more than 30 years – despite or perhaps because of the military build-up “Not a bullet has been fired, not a soldier lost,” says Indian foreign ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash. Yet some see dangers in the continuing war of words in the Indian and Chinese media. Jonathan Holslag says that although it is only “25% real, it plays up nationalist sentiment and reduces the scope for making compromises”. If economic growth slows much more in either India or China – and there are already signs – that could spell trouble, encouraging nationalism that could turn “nasty”.

 

Source: http://www.sananews.net/english/2011/12/india-and-china-the-new-great-game/

Filed Under: China, Nuclear, Weapons Tagged With: ,

U.S.-China: Arms Race In The Pacific

December 4, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Chinese Foreign Ministry described the U.S. growing military presence in the Pacific “a return to the Cold War strategy”. The announcement came following an agreement signed between Washington and Canberra to station up to 2,500 U.S. marines in Australia’s northern city of Darwin.

Analysts draw out attention to a key trend in the growing military confrontation in the Pacific: the stronger the Chinese economy is and the faster it carries out its military reforms, the stronger is the U.S. presence in the Pacific. No doubt, the two super powers are entering a new phase of strategic confrontation.

While the role of the US Navy in the region is rather symbolic as far as the implementation of obligations given to allies is concerned, the US presence in the Strait of Malacca allows them to control the delivery of the Mideast oil to the Pacific region. This strait is also a route to deliver commercial goods from the Pacific to the Middle East. Neither the U.S. has plans to reduce its military personnel in the western part of the Pacific. These are 80,000 troops stationed in Japan and 28,000- in South Korea.

It is worth mentioning that the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is staying in Myanma these days, which is a first official visit of the top US diplomat to this country since 1955. The visit was organized immediately after the Myanmar authorities showed their intention to start democratic reforms. Analysts say, however, that the main aim of Mrs. Clinton`s visit is to demonstrate it to China that its interests in Myanma differ from those of the U.S.

During his recent visit to the region, the Pentagon`s chief Leon Panetta said that the U.S. was planning to reduce its presence there. He said that his country`s strategy was to offer a counterbalance against China`s ‘affirmative action’ policy, the words used to describe Beijing`s growing territorial disputes with neighbors and its increased military spending. Military expert Viktor Baranets comments:

“China has been intensively increasing its military presence in land and sea areas, and even in space. China bought a Russian aircraft carrier and has already given it its first sea trials, thus evoking great concern in the U.S. Actually, the U.S. presence in the region is weakening gradually and is likely to exist on equal terms with China.

Military analyst Vladimir Yevseev thinks that this competition may trigger armed conflict in the area.

Experts say there is one but very solid reason to avoid this: as the world`s leading economies, China and the US are so dependant on each other that any military conflict between them will result in a global economic catastrophe. Both Beijing and Washington are aware of the consequences. Experts suggest creating an OSCE-style governing body to monitor security in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the sides should resort to all possible tools to avoid the escalation of tensions.

The 2012 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit will be held in Russia’s Vladivostok. Moscow says that arms race in the Pacific will be among key issues on the agenda.

 

Source: http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/02/61376749.html

Filed Under: China, Imperialism, USA, Weapons Tagged With:

Northern Kosovo: Serbs make their last stand

November 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Violence flared up in Northern Kosovo with NATO soldiers using tear gas against local Serbs who tried to stop their barricades being dismantled and refused to unconditionally lift roadblocks to allow peacekeeping troops free movement in the region. But as political analyst Nikola Tanasic told RT, NATO forces have been acting erratically.

It’s not the first time NATO troops have used force against local Serbs. But originally the peacekeepers moved in to calm the area. According to Tanasic, at the moment NATO forces have been acting somewhat erratically.

“When they initially moved in, they were part of the solution, because the Serbian government authorized their taking control over the administrative crossings in the north, but that kind of intervention lasted only a month and a half. And now this time has expired, and NATO has not shown it has a clear vision of what it wants to do. Most times, like yesterday, they are just policing for the Kosovo government, and that is the kind of behavior that is unacceptable for the Serbs,” he said.

He added there is no doubt that NATO has a legitimate presence in Kosovo. It is not a problem of whether they should be there as they are the only legitimate force which should act in such situations. The problem, as he sees it, is that they are exceeding the limits of their authority.

The Serbian interior minister said that further attacks on local Serbs in Kosovo will be seen as attacks on Belgrade and that “Serbia cannot and will not watch on peacefully”. But according to Tanasic, no one in Belgrade has any intention to making any threats.

“The whole point of what was said was just to draw everyone’s attention on how tense the situation is and how inflammable it is at this point. The whole problem there is that they do not want to sit all night at the barricades,” he explained. “People are really scared. There are threats all the time, there are incidents on the Albanian side, there are people getting shot and there is a great number of people, especially from the Albanian side, who are constantly threatened with the so-called Croatian scenario. There is also the fact that up to two thirds of the Serbian population in Kosovo has already been ethnically cleansed. Belgrade is not making any threats at this point,” he emphasized.

Tanasic also stated that technically and ideally speaking, the problem will be solved if everyone just entered the EU and started living peacefully in a union with no borders.

“The problem is how to get there. The Serbian side is constantly saying ‘All right, we are completely aware that we have to find a solution for the problem at some point in the future, but we do not want to rush it and we will never agree to any kind of solution which is unacceptable for both sides’. That is not something we are facing at the moment. We have Serbia pressurized to find a solution now, although both Serbia and Kosovo are very far from the EU at this point. So it is mostly a sort of a political pressure and not an actual option at this point,” he concluded.

Source: http://rt.com/news/kosovo-serbs-barricades-kfor-267

Filed Under: NATO, Protests Tagged With: , , ,