article[s] found via yahoo.com”s news search
March 12 (Bloomberg) — India, which has tripled its defense spending in a race against China’s military buildup, is having trouble converting the funding into weapons and equipment its military says are urgently needed.
By us.rd.yahoo.com

Click here for original article

Mar.11 (China Military News cited from Time.com and written by Austin Ramzy) — For the past two decades, China’s rapid economic growth has been twinned with an even more rapid increase in military spending. While GDP has expanded by an annual average of 9.6% over the past 10 years, the reported budget for the People’s Liberation Army has grown by an average of 16%. So it was an unexpected surprise when Li Zhaoxing, a former foreign minister who is now spokesman for the National People’s Congress, announced on March 4 that China’s defense budget would increase by 7.5% for 2010, just over half of last year’s 14.9% rise.

The slowdown was partly attributed the difficult economic climate. While China was able to grow at 8.7% last year, that healthy rate came at the expense of $586 billion in stimulus spending. Last week Premier Wen Jiabao said that government spending would grow more slowly this year as Beijing seeks to control inflation while maintaining stable growth.

Amid those economic demands, another double-digit increase in military spending might be seen as excessive. But perhaps the most compelling reason for the slowdown in spending is that Chinese officials have become more cautious of the way the development of the People’s Liberation Army is perceived abroad. Last year China marked the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic with an Oct. 1 military parade in front of Tiananmen Square. While generally a cause for celebration in China, the parade of soldiers, tanks and missile carriers was seen as intimidating by many foreign observers.

Chinese military analysts have explained the rapid spending increase as normal for a large nation climbing out of decades of poverty. “Although China now has a growing military demand, it has always upheld the principle of peaceful development. The double-digit increases in the past should be interpreted as compensational growth,” says Zhao Zongjiu, deputy secretary-in-general at Shanghai Institute for International Strategic Studies, a government-backed think tank. “I predict that, given the current policy environment, the growth rate of military expenses will remain roughly on the same level as China’s GDP growth in the next few years.”

China’s 2010 military budget, which is awaiting legislative approval, will be $78 billion. That would make it second only to the United States, which for 2010 has a total budget of $663.8 billion. U.S. spending is equivalent to 4.7% of the nation’s GDP, while China’s defense outlay equals about 1.5% of its estimated 2010 GDP.

But military observers have long cautioned that China’s official defense budget figures shouldn’t be taken at face value, and that actual spending could be two or three times higher than what is reported. China is engaged in a significant number of expensive military equipment development programs, including likely efforts to develop its first aircraft carrier. Those all make it difficult to curtail spending, says Andrei Chang, Hong Kong-based editor-in-chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly. “There are very ambitious military plans for the Chinese,” he says. “This is the reason it’s impossible to have an increase of 7.5%.”

Improving ties with Taiwan have also lessened some of the military tension along China’s periphery. Beijing considers the self-ruled island a breakaway province that should ultimately be reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary. A more China-friendly leadership in Taipei has helped eased some of the fear of armed conflict. But the region still has the potential to be a flash point. Taiwan says China has some 1,500 missiles stationed along the Taiwan Strait. And a decision by U.S. President Obama in January to approve the sale of more than $6 billion in military equipment to Taiwan has angered the Chinese government, which has postponed some military exchanges with the U.S. in protest.

Chang also notes that China is just two years away from an expected reconfiguration of its leadership. President Hu Jintao is expected to step down, and will want to secure high positions for his political allies. Drastically curtailing defense spending could alienate the military, whose support he needs to ensure top spots for his proteges. “The new round of political power struggle is continuing,” Chang says. “You have to give souvenirs to the armed forces.”

You may also be interested in

• September 15, 2008 — China’s military ambition fuels Asian arms race (0)
• March 2, 2010 — China’s Military Turns Up The Heat (6)
• March 2, 2010 — Chinese Regime Passes New Military Mobilization Law (3)
• February 4, 2010 — China, India boost defence as crisis takes toll on West (3)
• January 31, 2010 — China, Iran Prompt U.S. Air-Sea Battle Plan in Strategy Review (1)
• January 21, 2010 — US to hold arms reductions talks with China, Gates says (1)
• January 14, 2010 — Chinese Military Giving America Sleepless Nights (3)
• January 14, 2010 — House panel told Chinese military is growing, but not a threat to U.S. (3)
• December 26, 2009 — China’s military strength ranks second? Experts say ‘over-stated’ (0)
• December 2, 2009 — China taking on growing role in U.N. peacekeeping missions (2)

By admin

Click here for original article

Feb.21 (China Military News cited from Chinadaily and written by Qin Jize and Li Xiaokun) — washington appears determined to surround China with US-built anti-missile systems, military scholars have observed.

According to US-based Defense News, Taiwan became the fifth global buyer of the Patriot missile defense system last year following Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Germany.

Quite a few military experts have noted that Washington’s latest proposed weapon deal with Taiwan is the key part of a US strategic encirclement of China in the East Asian region, and that the missiles could soon have a footprint that extends from Japan to the Republic of Korea and Taiwan.

Air force colonel Dai Xu, a renowned military strategist, wrote in an article released this month that “China is in a crescent-shaped ring of encirclement. The ring begins in Japan, stretches through nations in the South China Sea to India, and ends in Afghanistan. Washington’s deployment of anti-missile systems around China’s periphery forms a crescent-shaped encirclement”.

Ni Lexiong, an expert on military affairs with the Shanghai Institute of Political Science and Law, told the Guanghzou Daily yesterday, “The US anti-missile system in China’s neighborhood is a replica of its strategy in Eastern Europe against Russia. The Obama administration began to plan for such a system around China after its project in Eastern Europe got suspended”.

Tang Xiaosong, director of the Center of International Security and Strategy Studies with Guangdong University of Foreign Studies noted that the ring encircling China can also be expanded at any time in other directions. He said that Washington is hoping to sell India and other Southeast Asian countries the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 missile defense system.

Analysts say that China is closely monitoring US-India missile defense cooperation since any integration of India into the US global missile defense system, would profoundly affect China’s security.

However, according to former Chinese Ambassador to India Pei Yuanying, India is unlikely to be part of any such US scheme against China.

“New Delhi needs to develop relations with the US, but it wants to be an independent international power on the international arena,” he said.

Pei said it was necessary to take multiple aspects of China-US relations into consideration. “The US has followed the policy of engagement plus containment with China for a long time and that overall policy will not change during Obama’s term,” he said.

Defense News quoted John Holly, Lockheed’s vice president of Missile Defense Systems as saying the outlook for the missile defense market remains sound.

Pointing to missile programs in Pyongyang, Teheran, Moscow and Beijing, Holly said “the world is not a very safe world and it is incumbent upon us in the industry to provide (the Pentagon) with the best capabilities.”

Beijing has frequently criticized US missile-defense development and has been making efforts to restrict missile defenses through the United Nations forums.

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told a UN disarmament conference in August in Geneva that “countries should neither seek for absolute strategic predominance nor develop missile-defense systems that undermine global strategic stability.”

You may also be interested in

• December 7, 2009 — China’s CJ-20 Air Launched Cruise Missile to be operational with H-6 Bomber (1)
• November 2, 2009 — The Launch Video of PLA Navy YJ-62A Anti-ship Missile (1)
• October 17, 2009 — Missile Test failure Shames Taiwan’s President (0)
• September 21, 2009 — It’s awesome! The launch Video of China’s CJ-10 Cruise Missile (3)
• September 9, 2009 — Liang Shoupan, Father of Chinese YJ-8 Anti-ship Missile Passes Away. (1)
• April 10, 2009 — A Panoramic Image of HQ-16 Missile Vehicle Appears on Internet (4)
• February 17, 2009 — Internet Photo shows New Ballastic Missile of PLA Dongfeng Missile Family (0)
• February 13, 2009 — Chinese People tell you how to differentiate S-300 and HQ-9 missile system (0)
• October 11, 2008 — New Photos about Chinese YJ-62 Anti-Ship Missile Unveil (0)

By admin

Click here for original article

Feb.10 (China Military Power Reporting by Johnathan Weng) — February 8, 2010, the Xinjiang Armed Police Corps’ Sixth detachment was set up in a grand conference, the Xinjiang Armed Police Corps to further expand the scale.

Chinese Armed Police Force deputy chief of staff Pan Changjie, vice chairman of the Xinjiang autonomous region Jappa Abibulla inaugurated the foundation meeting of the sixth detachment.

At the meeting, Pan Changjie hopes the sixth armed police detachment to become the fist to maintain stability in Xinjiang. In the formation of 6th Detachment, levels of officers are from other Xinjiang armed force units and its cadremen are transferred from across the country of elite anti-terror forces.
 
The positioning of the sixth detachment based in Urumqi protection and this unit is a brigade-level force to carry anti-terror mission around the Xinjiang.

Vice Chairman Jappa Abibulla fully affirmed the significance of the 6th armed police detachment, while he said the local government would continue to carry out its mandate to support the armed police force to help solve their problems.

Xinjiang Armed Police Corps totally has 14 armed police detachments and one armed police mobile division. Northern Xinjiang region has five armed police detachment and an armed police motorized divisions, and there are nine detachments in southern Xinjiang. In Xinjiang Autonomous Region, Chinese government has placed the largest armed police power, whose strength could reach 30,000.

Some related information:
   
Northern Xinjiang region:

     1st Detachment
Location: Urumqi
Purpose: Mobile Anti-terror operation

     2nd Detachment
Location: Urumqi
Purpose: Mobile Anti-terror operation

     6th Detachment
Location: Urumqi
Purpose: Mobile Anti-terror operation

     4th Detachment
Location: Kashi

     5th Detachment
Location: Ili

     7th People’s Armed Police Tactical Division
     Location: Ili
 
    Southern Xinjiang region:

     3rd Detachment
Location: Aksu

     Bayingolin Detachment
Location: Bayingolin

     8th Detachment
     Location: Hotan
    
     Other detachments in southern Xinjiang region are unclear.

You may also be interested in

• December 31, 2009 — Bloody Photos: pictures of 2008 terror attack in Xinjiang firstly opened (0)
• July 11, 2009 — Chinese Armed Police Reinforcement for Urumchi Riot Air Transporting Plan Displosed (2)
• January 26, 2009 — Armed Police in South Xinjiang in anti-terror drills before Spring Festival (0)
• December 20, 2008 — China Marine Special Force Team to fight against somalia pirates (0)
• December 4, 2008 — Sino-India “Hand-in-Hand 2008″ Joint Anti-Terror Drill Initiates (0)
• November 28, 2008 — China’s Guantanamo Problem (1)
• October 21, 2008 — China announces names of 8 “Eastern Turkistan” terrorists (0)
• October 8, 2008 — Some Photos of China Armed Forces Anti-Terroism Drill (0)
• August 26, 2008 — Funny! China Armed Police use Segway as anti-terror vehicle (23)

By admin

Click here for original article

Feb.02 (China Military News cited from PLAdaily and written by Guo Jianyue and Gao Pengfei) — The Chinese and Russian frontier defense troops accomplished the first joint patrol along the Argun River, an iced Sino-Russian boundary river in the east of Inner Mongolia of People’s Republic of China (PRC), between January 25 and 26.

According to the commander of the Hulun Buir Military Sub-Command of the Inner Mongolia Military Command, the Sino-Russian joint patrol this time not only enhanced mutual trust and understanding between the Chinese and Russian border representative organs, but also laid a more solid foundation for the Chinese and Russian frontier defense troops to construct a peaceful and stable frontier environment through concerted efforts.

Offciers of  Chinese and Russian boundary defense troops

In spite of that the temperature in the Greater Khingan Mountains in the east of Inner Mongolia was as low as 30 degrees Centigrade below zero at 8:30 a.m. on January 25, the Sino-Russian frontier defense troops carried out their joint-patrol along the iced border river as planned.

The patrol personnel entered the iced boundary Argun River from the Chinese territory and then headed northward following the No. 111 border marker before finally arriving at the No. 124 border marker on the afternoon of January 26, covering a distance of 200 km in total.

The personnel participating in the joint patrol had determined on carrying out such tasks as jointly inspecting the order of the covered border section, checking the border markers and greeting the officers and men performing duty at the sentry posts.

Some officers and men from each of the Sino-Russian frontier sentries along the border river were also dispatched to join in the joint patrol in such forms as taking a vehicle and riding a motorcycle or a sled.

It is learned that in the coming summer the Sino-Russian joint patrol by boat will be staged along the boundary Argun River and a Sino-Russian joint military exercise will be carried out to crack down on the cross-border smuggling and sorts of other illegal activities in the Sino-Russian border area so as to guarantee the stability and prosperity in that area.

You may also be interested in

• September 16, 2009 — China and India Governments deny firing by Chinese troops across “Line of Actual Control” (0)
• September 1, 2009 — India says Chinese Helicopter violate Air Space, but China denies it (6)
• February 4, 2010 — China dissatisfied with U.S. report on its military build-up (0)
• January 21, 2010 — US to hold arms reductions talks with China, Gates says (1)
• January 9, 2010 — China, India hold 3rd round of defense consultation (0)
• January 6, 2010 — China, Singapore seek to further military ties (5)
• January 4, 2010 — Indian Defence Secretary on China visit from January 6 (0)
• December 22, 2009 — China, Kazakhstan to bolster military cooperation for natural gas pipeline Protection? (4)
• December 18, 2009 — China vows to deepen military cooperation with Pakistan (0)
• December 18, 2009 — Ma Xiaotian meets representatives of first China-Vietnam young officer exchange activity (1)

By admin

Click here for original article
The U.S. military training system is the envy of many countries around the world, but the militaries of China, France, the UK, India, and Israel can help the U.S. identify different approaches to readiness, adaptability, and operational issues.
By rand.org

Click here for original article
Pakistani officials continue to press the U.S. for missile armed UAVs, so Pakistan can go after targets it selects, and ease the American UAVs out of Pakistan. The U.S. doesn’t trust the Pakistanis, who can be bribed, and often have divided (pro-Taliban) loyalties. Pakistani politicians don’t care, or at least have learned to live with these two problems, and want control of UAVs so they won’t continue getting criticized for allowing American UAVs to deal with hunting down and killing terrorist leaders. This is considered humiliating by many, if not most, Pakistanis. But if the Pakistani government were in charge, the bad guys could bribe, or intimidate officials, to get off the target list. You can’t do that with the Americans. What the Taliban can do is try and find who is supplying the location information of targets. The Americans actually use a wide array of sources, but the only ones the Taliban can get at are suspected spies. More are killed each month, and most are apparently innocent. This sort of thing angers a lot of people, as do a lot of Taliban policies. So the Taliban are taking note of growing public anger against them, and have, for example, allowed music to be sold again. For the last year, the Taliban had waged open, or guerilla, war against merchants who sold music CDs. The Taliban increasingly must use force to control populations, and this eventually backfires because most of the population is armed. If enough angry tribesmen get together, the Taliban are driven out of another town or valley. This has been happening a lot in the last year.

In Quetta, the largest city in Pakistani Baluchistan, two policemen were wounded when they questioned a suicide bomber equipped with a defective bomb. The bomber was wounded and captured. Baluchistan has its own tribal uprising, which has little to do with the Taliban (although the Baluch tribes allow the Taliban to hide out in Baluchistan).

China and Pakistan are becoming closer allies, and this worries India. For example, China is increasingly taking Pakistan’s side in the Kashmir dispute. While Pakistan and India occupy most of Kashmir, China also grabbed 22 percent of Kashmir, and wants a settlement that will confirm their ownership. But India disputes the Chinese claim, and many other such claims along its 4,000 kilometers border with China.

India continues to mass police and troops for a major campaign against Maoist rebels. In the last year, Maoist violence have been responsible for over a thousand deaths (most of them civilians). The Maoists are a combination of political rebels and bandits. Their activities are as often just criminal (stealing and extortion) as political (trying to influence elections or intimidate politicians.) The Maoists have been at it for two decades, and have worn out the support they long had with leftist political parties. The Maoists want a communist dictatorship, with Maoists in charge, and their former leftist allies are not keen on this.

February 3, 2010: In northwest Pakistan, a suicide car bomber rammed the specific vehicle in a convoy of five, that contained three U.S. Army Special Forces troops, killing the Americans. For years, there have been about a hundred of these American troops in Pakistan, used to train NCOs of the Frontier Corps, who then improve the training of these paramilitary troops, recruited from the tribes, who are the primary security force along the border. The accuracy of this attack (the killers knew where the Special Forces troops were headed and which car in a convoy) indicates corruption in the Pakistani security or intelligence forces. The corruption has always been there, and it would have cost a lot of cash to buy this kind of information. It may indicate the Taliban are desperate to strike back at any cost. The three dead Americans are the first to die in Pakistan in a decade of operating there. The three were travelling to a girls school that had recently been rebuilt (after having been damaged by the Taliban) with American aid.

February 2, 2010: In Pakistan (North Waziristan) American USVs fired over a dozen missiles at four villages, killing about 17 suspected Taliban and al Qaeda members.

February 1, 2010: In the Bajaur area of the Pakistani tribal territories, about 4,000 people fled their homes as troops sought, and attacked, nearby bunkers and other hiding places used by the Taliban. At least 22 of the Islamic terrorists were killed. This operation is one of several in which the army is chasing down groups of Taliban who were part of larger forces that were defeated when the army broke Taliban control in the tribal territories.

January 31, 2010: The U.S. announced that the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, was dead, having died of wounds received in an American UAV missile attack two weeks ago. This conclusion is based on reports coming out of the tribal territories of Hakimullah Mehsud’s burial, after two weeks of futile attempts to tend his wounds. Hakimullah Mehsud, replaced, after some internal fighting, the Pakistani Taliban leader who was killed by a missile strike last Summer.

January 30, 2010: In the Pakistani tribal territories, a Taliban suicide bomber killed 17 people and wounded nearly 50. The Taliban have also used several roadside bombs recently, attacking civilians in most cases. In response, the military has increased its air strikes and ground operations against the scattered Taliban groups still operating in the tribal territories.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/articles/20100205.aspx

By polaris

Click here for original article

Feb.03 (China Military News cited from Reuters and written by Adrian Croft) – China and India sharply raised defence spending in 2009 despite the economic crisis but most European NATO members face a squeeze on defence budgets as they rein in gaping deficits, a report said on Wednesday.

The impact of the global financial crisis on defence and security spending varied across regions and countries, the International Institute for Strategic Studies thinktank said in its annual report “The Military Balance”.

PLA Navy Warwhip’s Main Gun and HHQ-9 air Defense Missile

U.S. defence spending almost doubled under former President George W. Bush but President Barack Obama had signalled that the need to tackle a big budget deficit would require “a dramatic reprioritisation within defence spending”, it said.

Obama asked Congress this week to approve a record $708 billion in defense spending for fiscal 2011 — including a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon’s base budget — but said he would continue his drive to eliminate wasteful programmes.

A sharp recession had led the Russian government effectively to abandon a comprehensive military re-equipment plan due to run from 2007-15 and to replace it with a new 10-year plan starting in 2011, the report said.

“In contrast to developments in advanced economies, both India and China have maintained their recent trend of double-digit increases in defence spending,” it said.

PLA Army Type 59 Main Battle Tank 

India boosted defence spending by 21 percent in 2009 after the 2008 Mumbai attacks killed 166 people, it said.

China’s official 2009 budget included a 15 percent rise in defence spending to 480 billion yuan, equal to $70.3 billion at market exchange rates, the report said.

However, it said the official Chinese defence budget did not reflect the true level of resources devoted to the People’s Liberation Army. It was widely believed that the official budget took no account of weapons bought overseas or research and development funding, it said.
EUROPEAN DEFENCE LIKELY TO SUFFER

Other Asian countries, such as Australia, Indonesia and Singapore, had also posted increases in defence spending, it said.

PLA Air Force J-11B Fighter

In Europe, though, many countries had seen their budget deficits rise sharply as they pumped money into the economy to try to end the recession.

“When the time comes to redress these fiscal imbalances, discretionary spending will come under considerable pressure and defence is likely to suffer, particularly in those countries facing a looming demographic shift requiring greater expenditure on pensions and healthcare,” the editor of the Military Balance, James Hackett, wrote in the report.

Britain faced a challenge in reconciling its budget deficit with its large and growing future equipment plan, it said.

Among European members of NATO, only Norway and Denmark were likely to increase their defence budgets in 2010, and over the medium term most other countries would do well to increase defence spending in line with inflation or match existing budget levels, it said.

This would lead to pressure to step up pooling and multinational management of defence assets, to countries specialising in niche capabilities and to the collective procurement of critical defence equipment, it said.

You may also be interested in

• January 31, 2010 — China, Iran Prompt U.S. Air-Sea Battle Plan in Strategy Review (0)
• January 14, 2010 — Chinese Military Giving America Sleepless Nights (2)
• January 14, 2010 — House panel told Chinese military is growing, but not a threat to U.S. (1)
• December 26, 2009 — China’s military strength ranks second? Experts say ‘over-stated’ (0)
• December 2, 2009 — China taking on growing role in U.N. peacekeeping missions (2)
• November 11, 2009 — China grounds ’space force’ talk (2)
• November 9, 2009 — Obama confronts an Asia reshaped by China’s rise (2)
• November 4, 2009 — China’s military making strides in space: US general (2)
• November 1, 2009 — China’s PLA eyes future in space, air: air force commander (0)
• October 26, 2009 — We sticks to path of peaceful development: China’s second highest-ranking military officer (1)

By admin

Click here for original article
As George Bush once said, the relationship between US and China is complicated. In many ways, I think China is one of the few policy areas that Bush got almost everything right. He started presidency with much anti-China rhetoric, but left the office as one of the most pro-China president in US history. It is my personal view that having a positive, engaging and pragmatic relationship with China is the most beneficial path that any US administration can take. Some people in the China-blue group (like Bill Gertz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld) favoured antagonizing China through more support with Taiwan, labeling China as a threat/competitor and creating an encirclement of China through alliance with Australia, Japan and India. Bush started off in that corner, but he slowly moved to great engagement with China while maintaining strong relationships with regional allies like Australia and Japan. I think he basically did a really good of adapting to the rise of China, the increased role of China as America’s creditor and the interconnected economic relationship between the two countries. He started started the strategic dialog with China, which I think really helped the bilateral relationship. I think he was absolutely right in going to the Beijing Olympics when the pressure was on him not to. By the end of his presidency, he had built a really good working relationship with China and a good understanding of the country. He was able to work with China on critical political and economical issues, even though the two sides had vastly different views. I think China really appreciated that.

The Obama administration was definitely very China friendly in the first year. A major reason is America’s need for China to continue to buy US treasury bond in the midst of the economic meltdown in America. A lot of people got nervous or angry by the fact that Obama/Hilary put human rights on the back burners, but I think that is overplayed. I always think that it’s far more effective to encourage China and explain the importance of human rights privately rather than embarrassing the Politburo in public. I do think that Obama gave in too much to China in some of the early negotiations like his visit to China, because it emboldened China to ask for more and give in less to US in future negotiations. In many ways, this is the expected path. Washington insiders cannot expect America to negotiate from a position of absolute strength like during Clinton years, because China is just so much stronger now economically and politically. I don’t really want to put military in there, because China’s recent success comes from its status as the world’s leading creditor nation. As history as shown, power flows to where money is and that is playing out again in China today. Now that Washington has elevated China to be the other super power of the world in the past world, it would be hard to push back Chinese ambitions. We have a problem now where the Chinese leadership also has to satisfy and listen to the growing middle class that is more nationalistic and confident than ever. So, as Washington is pressing Obama to get more out of China, the Chinese population is also pressuring the Politburo to not give up any of its new found power. With this kind of power struggle between the two countries, it’s not surprising that we have run into the current row.

Now, to turn on our attention to the point of contentions of the recent weeks: Taiwan, Tibet, Google and Iran. If we start with Iran, we all know what the issue is here. China has a lot of money invested in the country and relies on Iran for future energy supply. You know we can say a lot about the type of regime in the country, but US is also dealing with a lot of unsavory characters in the Middle East. The question is whether or not it makes sense for China to support tougher sanctions in Iran. I actually think it does, but there is obviously a limit that China can go without risking all of its major contracts in Iran. The reason to support tougher sanctions on Iran are many. Even though Iran may not be as actively developing nuclear weapon or as further along in its development as the Israelis think, it does openly taunt the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The danger to China is that more countries will seek for nuclear weapon and countries like Japan and South Korea will also develop it. I don’t think China is willing to accept that kind of strategical change. The more immediate threat comes from Israel. Now, the Israeli gov’t seemed to have given the Obama administration a deadline in harsh sanctions against Iran before it launches strikes against Iran’s nuclear targets. If that happens, Iran could cause all sort of problems in the Middle East if it manages to carry out its threat of shutting down oil/gas supplies in that region. Surging energy prices and instability in Middle Easts are definitely things that China would be afraid of. I’m really not sure how this will turn out. I can see that Israel will continue to ask for more from US and US will continue to ask for more support from China/Russia. At the end, I really don’t think US will get what it wants from China.

As for Google, I think this is more about China’s general cyber espionage effort against US governments and corporations rather than just Google. Let’s face it, these “attacks” against Google were attempts to get emails of human right activists rather than bringing down Google’s servers. It is not like we don’t know that China’s human rights record is rather poor. Rather than complaining to the Chinese gov’t and the media, the US government should run a similar cyber effort against China. And I think they are doing that, because China also claims to face a lot of cyber attacks. So in the end, I really don’t have a lot of sympathies for the US government or Google. Google is making a lot of noises about leaving China, but it is still operating in China with the self imposed censor turned on (despite its public claims otherwise). Like all other big corporations, it’s number 1 goal is to make more money. If it thinks that the cost of business outweighs the benefits, then it will leave the country. Clearly, the other 30 target firms are not going anywhere. The US government is in a position to fight fire with fire. If US wants to remain the IT leader of the world, then it should be able to create security and infiltrate other networks better than any other countries in the world. I think this issue will die down as soon as Google finds a solution with the Chinese gov’t. I really don’t think it will leave the country, because it does not want to totally abandon the search engine and especially the cell phone market for the future.

As a result of not receiving Chinese support on some issues, I think the recent moves are calculated actions by the Obama administration saying that we are not going to play “nice guy” with you anymore. Taiwan and Tibet are certainly the two things that agitate China more than anything else. To much of the Western world, Taiwan is just an Asian nation with a democratic gov’t threatened by China and Tibet is a land occupied by the brutal repression of China. Of course, the sympathetic image of Tibet is played up by the non-threatening zen-like image of Dalai Lama. The image of Dalai Lama as this international loved religious leader has basically elevated Tibet freedom ahead of many other larger and more repressed groups. One would really have to study Chinese history to see why the Chinese gov’t and its people have such a dislike to Taiwan Independence and Dalai Lama.

To the Chinese people, the 100 years from 1840 to 1949 was its century of humiliation where it had to give up part of its sovereignty and surrender its land to foreigners. It is important to take back all that it was forced to give up during that period. When China was negotiating with UK for the return of Hong Kong, Deng Xiaoping actually told Margaret Thatcher that “China is not Argentina” and that China would take Hong Kong back by force if necessary. So to Chinese people, Taiwan is a reminder that China was forced to give up land to foreign occupiers during that century. To Chinese people, Tibet was a backward, feudal region that was briefly taken away early this century and was liberated of those oppressive Lamas and foreigners in 1950s. Of course, there are strategic element to it. The navy does not think that it can truly operate beyond the first chain until the hostile ROCN is no longer at its door step. The army believes that it needs Tibet as a buffer zone and natural barrier that protects the nation from the Indians. There are obviously more to it. Most Chinese people believe that Han people everywhere are really Chinese and should rejoin China. They find the Dalai Lama request for true autonomy (This Forbes Article contains the key facts) to be more appalling for the following reasons:

• The land requested by Dalai Lama is not just the current Tibet autonomous region, but also includes large parts of surrounding provinces.
• These lands are requested despite the fact that Han population have long been the majority in some of those areas.
• The so called autonomy actually sounds more like sovereignty, because Chinese troops is no longer allowed on the land. There is no way that PLA can accept this due to the strategic implications against India.
• Dalai Lama requested China to stop transferring Han population to Tibet, but that has never actually happened. How can the 3 million Tibetans remain in majority if PRC actually tried to relocate Han people there?
• Dalai Lama, the former feudal ruler of Tibet with many slaves, is insincere when it comes to democracy for Tibetans.

Therefore, the divergence of opinion on the military sale to Taiwan stems from how the West and China sees Taiwan. Most Westerners believe that Taiwan is a separate sovereign entity that should only rejoin China if it wishes to do so. Therefore, Americans see these military sales as fulfilling the Taiwan Relation Act by providing Taiwan with additional defensive deterrent. The weapons themselves are very advanced, but they are defensive in nature and are not going to change the military balance across the straits. The best hope for Taiwan is still to make peace with China and maintaining strong relationship with America. So, what is the problem? Well, most Chinese people believe that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China that no other country should interfere with. Therefore, any sales to Taiwan is looked as containing Chinese power, violating its sovereignty and interfering with its internal affairs. While this might have been acceptable in the past, the increasingly confident Chinese public are no longer willing to keep quiet to such snobs. The meeting with Dalai Lama stokes anger in China for similar reasons. The Politburo has to make a lot of noise and take what appears to be strong actions to satisfy the public. In the past, we have often heard cases where the government publicly criticizes another head of state meeting Dalai Lama, but then telling them privately that things will be business as usual. I tend to think that will happen again here. They will make a lot of noise and suspend military contacts, but those things will be re-established sometimes next year. I don’t think the Obama administration needs to meet Dalai Lama again or sell weapons to Taiwan again for a few years, so things should smooth out by later this year. At the end of the day, it is in China’s interest to have strong working relationship and military exchanges with America. The PRC leadership is too pragmatic to let this drag on. On the other hand, I think the sanctions against US companies could happen. Since US has been sanctioning Chinese companies for years for doing business with Iran, I think punishing American companies for helping Taiwan is pretty logical. They really don’t do much business with Lockheed and Raytheon, so any kind of sanctions against them would be quite symbolic. They do a lot of business with Boeing, but Boeing is selling very minimal to Taiwan. The trickiest case here is Sikorsky and its parent company UTC. They do a ton of business with UTC. In fact, PLA even operates some blackhawk helicopters, some unmanned version of S-300C and PWC engines on some helicopters/air planes. Can they really sanction a company that they sort of depends on for some secondary defense project? Especially now that Eurocopter announced recently that they are also selling to Taiwan. Can China sanction Eurocopter when it is partners with Eurocopter on so many projects? We will see. I tend to think that any sanctions against US/EU companies over weapons sale to Taiwan at the moment would not be more symbolic than anything else. Maybe they will warn these companies that any future sales would be met with harsher sanctions.

In general, I think we have entered a phase where the Politburo has to be more vocal against US government and companies for support toward Taiwan and Tibet, because the public and the military demand it. Politburo can no longer accept explanations like “the previous administration did it” or “these weapons are only defensive” or “we have to do it for political reasons” and remain quiet, because it has to satisfy the local population and the military too. At the moment, the retaliatory actions will remain mostly air like in previous occasions, but they will be a lot stronger in the future if US decides to sell an offensive platform like F-16 to Taiwan. Basically, the balance of power between the two nations is shifting and the Chinese responses against perceived US snubs are only going to get stronger.

By Feng

Click here for original article
China has signaled to set up foreign military bases including one in Pakistan, a Chinese government website said.

“Setting up overseas military bases is not an idea we have to shun; on the contrary, it is our right…it is baseless to say that we will not set up any military bases in future because we have never sent troops abroad,” said the report.

The report also said, “As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct the retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighbouring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the potential enemies’ overseas interests. With further development, China will be in great demand of the military protection”.

It is clearly aimed at piling up pressure on India and to counter US influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“As for the military aspect, we should be able to conduct the retaliatory attack within the country or at the neighboring area of our potential enemies. We should also be able to put pressure on the potential enemies’ overseas interests. With further development, China will be in great demand of the military protection,” said the report.

A military base in Pakistan will help China keep a check on Uighurs who are fighting for an independent nation in Xinjiang, which borders the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/China-mulls-military-bases-in-Pakistan/H1-Article1-502952.aspx

By polaris

Click here for original article

BEIJING, Jan. 24 (Xinhua) — A 40-member Chinese medical care and epidemic prevention team left here for Haiti on Sunday afternoon on a chartered flight, which also carried 20 tonnes of medical supplies, said the Ministry of Commerce (MOC).

The MOC said earlier in the day that China had decided to provide medical supplies worth 18 million yuan (2.64 million U.S. dollars) in additional aid to quake-ravaged Haiti.

Members of Chinese medical care and epidemic prevention team wave before they board a plane to Haiti, in Beijing, capital of China, on Jan. 24, 2010. A 40-member Chinese medical care and epidemic prevention team left here for Haiti on Sunday afternoon on a chartered flight, which also carried 20 tonnes of medical supplies.

The 20-tonne medical supplies included medicines, hygiene equipment, medical devices and camping equipment, said the ministry in a statement.

Also onboard the plane would be four Chinese peace-keeping police officers, replacing the four who were killed in the earthquake. China maintains a 125-member peacekeeping force in Haiti.

The chartered flight was expected to arrive at Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince at 3 p.m. Monday local time.

The MOC statement also said the 40 medical personnel came from China’s military medical system and 70 percent of them had participated in previous UN peacekeeping missions.

Many of them had been involved in the massive rescue mission after the deadly 8.0-magnitude Wenchuan earthquake on May 12, 2008, which left about 87,000 people dead or missing, it said.

At the departure ceremony, Qian Lihua, director of the Ministry of Defense’s foreign affairs office, said China was carrying out its responsibility as a UN Security Council member to help the Haitian people with concrete actions.

Qian said he expected the Chinese medical team to accomplish the mission in a professional manner by helping the Haitian people ward off threat of post-quake epidemic and reconstruct their homeland.

According to the MOC, with the 18 million yuan of additional aid, China has so far provided humanitarian aid worth 48 million yuan in materials and other supplies to Haiti, in addition to 3.6 million U.S. dollars in cash to the Caribbean country.

Apart from Sunday’s delivery of medical aid, China had already provided several other major aids to Haiti, which was hit by a 7.3-magnitude earthquake on Jan. 12 local time.

On Jan. 13, the Red Cross Society of China announced 1 million U.S. dollars in emergency aid to Haiti.

On Jan. 15, the Chinese government announced its decision to provide 30 million yuan worth of humanitarian emergency supplies to Haiti.

On Jan. 21, China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN Liu Zhenmin said China would contribute additional 2.6 million U.S. dollars in cash to Haiti.

Random Posts

• December 10, 2008 — India to set up world’s third mock flight deck for Carrier? No, China has the third one (0)
• June 15, 2008 — 16th Regiment JH-7 Fighters of PLA Navy 6th Air Division (0)
• August 23, 2008 — Building Aerial Strategy Platform: China’s Future Airlifter to be assembled in Xi’an (0)
• August 23, 2008 — China opens its 120mm Guided Mortar Munition (0)
• August 25, 2008 — China Nuclear Forces: 815th missile launching brigade (62)
• October 20, 2009 — “Airborne maneuver 2009″ kicks off, See a Gallery (1)
• March 16, 2009 — China to launch joint anti-terror drill with Russia (0)
• October 7, 2009 — Emerging Threats: China’s 60th anniversary raises questions (0)
• April 25, 2009 — Mexican Navy ARM Cuauhtémoc Traing Ship (0)
• January 27, 2009 — China exports more arms to African countries! (0)

By admin

Click here for original article

Jan.21 (China Military News cited from telegraph.co.uk and written by Dean Nelson) — The US wants to open Cold War-style arms reduction talks with China to prevent future military confrontations, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said in New Delhi on Wednesday.

His comments appeared to confirm Washington’s acceptance of China as a military superpower amid growing regional concerns over its build-up in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

China is currently undergoing a major overhaul of its armed forces. Beijing’s increasing number of nuclear submarine deployments have caused alarm in India, which regards China as its main regional rival.

China has further antagonised India by increasing military co-operation with India’s rival Pakistan, which is developing a new deep sea port at Gwadar, and neighbouring Burma.

India’s relations with China have deteriorated following a series of incursions along its disputed Himalayan border and a cyber attack last month on computers used by its top intelligence officials.

Mr Gates said he had discussed cyber security and China’s military build-up with the Indian prime minister and voiced America’s hopes to deepen understanding between Washington and Beijing on the issue.

He had been involved in the United States’ Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, which he believed had played an important role in avoiding armed conflict between the two countries. He said the same approach could help relations with China today.

“There was discussion about China’s military modernisation programme, what it meant, what the intentions of that military build-up and the desire on our part to engage China in a more routine and in depth dialogue about our strategic intentions and plans to avoid any miscalculations or misunderstandings down the road.

“I was involved in the strategic arms talks (with the USSR). I’m not sure they reduced any arms but the dialogue and candour about nuclear capabilities, how each side looked at nuclear weapons, played a significant role in preventing miscalculations and mistakes during the Cold War. That kind of dialogue with China would be most productive and in the interest of global security,” he said.

You may also be interested in

• January 9, 2010 — China, India hold 3rd round of defense consultation (0)
• January 6, 2010 — China, Singapore seek to further military ties (4)
• January 4, 2010 — Indian Defence Secretary on China visit from January 6 (0)
• December 22, 2009 — China, Kazakhstan to bolster military cooperation for natural gas pipeline Protection? (4)
• December 18, 2009 — China vows to deepen military cooperation with Pakistan (0)
• December 18, 2009 — Ma Xiaotian meets representatives of first China-Vietnam young officer exchange activity (1)
• December 15, 2009 — Chinese, Polish military officials vow to boost cooperation (2)
• December 6, 2009 — US-China military engagement lagging behind: US Pacific commander (0)
• November 29, 2009 — China-Pak military nexus a matter of concern: Indian defence minister (1)
• November 28, 2009 — China, Japan plan first joint military exercise (1)

By admin

originally published at china-defense-mashup.com

Jan.08 (China Military News cited from Xinhua) — China and India held the third round of defense consultation here Wednesday, according to a press release from the Information Office of China’s Defense Ministry Friday.

Deputy Chief of General Staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Ma Xiaotian and visiting Indian Defense Secretary Pradeep Kumar jointly presided over the consultation, during which they exchanged views and reached some consensus on bilateral ties, regional security, national defense policies and military exchanges and cooperation.

Soldiers in “Joint Hands-2008″ Sino-India Joint Exercise

During the consultations, the Chinese side expressed its concern to the Indian side over the irresponsible remarks made by a few Indian leaders and some Indian media’s untrue reports.

The Chinese side stressed that both China and India should do more work, which will be favorable for boosting healthy bilateral ties, so as to facilitate the good environment and conditions for China-India relations.

The Indian side said that India’s high-level officials endeavored to clarify the related remarks and those untrue reports and hoped to develop the friendly relations between India and China.

The year 2010, when China will celebrate its “India Year” and India its “China Year”, marked the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Both sides agreed that the two countries should take this opportunity to strengthen mutual trust, promote cooperation and work together for a better development environment as well as the regional and international peace and stability.

The first consultation was held in 2008.

You may also be interested in

• January 6, 2010 — China, Singapore seek to further military ties (3)
• January 4, 2010 — Indian Defence Secretary on China visit from January 6 (0)
• December 22, 2009 — China, Kazakhstan to bolster military cooperation for natural gas pipeline Protection? (4)
• December 18, 2009 — China vows to deepen military cooperation with Pakistan (0)
• December 18, 2009 — Ma Xiaotian meets representatives of first China-Vietnam young officer exchange activity (1)
• December 15, 2009 — Chinese, Polish military officials vow to boost cooperation (1)
• December 6, 2009 — US-China military engagement lagging behind: US Pacific commander (0)
• November 29, 2009 — China-Pak military nexus a matter of concern: Indian defence minister (1)
• November 28, 2009 — China, Japan plan first joint military exercise (1)
• November 28, 2009 — Russian president meets Chinese military leader on cooperation (0)

By admin

originally published at china-defense-mashup.com

December.31 (China Military News reporting by Johnathan Weng) — On August 4, 2008, a raid of a border armed police division in Xinjiang Monday morning killed 16 policemen. Almost 36 months later, some bloody photos about this incident have been unleashed from the inside of local police department.

One Chinese policeman’s throat was cut by attackers

According to Chinese news resources, the attack occurred in the front of the Yiquan Hotel, which is nearly 200 meters away from the Kashi border armed police division, Xinhua correspondent reported from Kashi.

The police investigation found that two attackers drove a tip lorry to hit a team of policemen who were jogging to pass the hotel in a regular morning exercise at about 8:00 a.m. The suspects then got off the lorry to throw explosive and hack the policemen with knives, after the vehicle veered to knock on a roadside wire pole, said the Kashi police.

Fourteen policemen were killed on the spot and two others died on the way to hospital, according to the police source at that time.

One man was crashed by the attacking truck

Chinese police foiled an attempted sabotage instigated and conducted by the “Eastern Turkistan” separatists on board a Southern Airlines flight in March. Three suspects detained by police fully admitted that the attack was masterminded.

This bomb raid occurred just 4 days before the opening of 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Chinese government believes that the game was a target for various anti-China and hostile forces, which are trying every possible way to sabotage the event.

Some brain Tissue of one victim

Knives used by attackers

the attacking scene

One injured policeman was rescued in hospital

Policemen’s inspection on the spot

Policemen’s inspection on the spot

One man was crashed by the attacking truck

One small arm used by the attackers

You may also be interested in

• July 11, 2009 — Chinese Armed Police Reinforcement for Urumchi Riot Air Transporting Plan Displosed (1)
• January 26, 2009 — Armed Police in South Xinjiang in anti-terror drills before Spring Festival (0)
• December 20, 2008 — China Marine Special Force Team to fight against somalia pirates (0)
• December 4, 2008 — Sino-India “Hand-in-Hand 2008″ Joint Anti-Terror Drill Initiates (0)
• November 28, 2008 — China’s Guantanamo Problem (0)
• October 21, 2008 — China announces names of 8 “Eastern Turkistan” terrorists (0)
• October 8, 2008 — Some Photos of China Armed Forces Anti-Terroism Drill (0)
• August 26, 2008 — Funny! China Armed Police use Segway as anti-terror vehicle (23)

By admin

originally published at china-defense-mashup.com

December.27 (China Military News cited from Global Times) — China’s military strength ranks second in the world in terms of expenditure, the number of troops and weaponry, according to a report released Thursday by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

The data provokes many questions from scholars and the public, though the government think tank emphasized the ranking was just based on selected factors and is not a comparison of real military power of the concerned countries.

The fleet of Chinese Navy’s 4 Project 956 Sovremenny class destroyers

The US, Japan and Germany rank as the top three in terms of comprehensive national strength and China is in seventh place, according to the Report on Comprehensive National Power Assessment, which evaluated the militaries of 11 countries, including seven Western countries and Brazil, Russia, India and China, the so-called BRICs.

The evaluation index includes five direct constituent elements – territory and natural resources, population, economy, military and science and technology – and four influencing factors – social development, sustainability, security and domestic politics and international contributions, it said.

KJ-2000 and KJ-200 AWACS aircrafts displayed in one Airport

To the surprise of many, China’s military power ranks second, with a total score of 33.3, behind the US, which scores 90.08, and just ahead of Russia, with 31.08.
“The high rank of China is mainly because it gets a higher score in terms of troop numbers and equipment,” the report said.

The Human Development Report 2007-2008, released by the UN, showed that the size of China’s military is the largest in the world, with 2.25 million troops, far more than the US’ 1.5 million.

The report cites Wikipedia as saying, China’s weaponry ranks third worldwide in terms of amount of equipment, with 240 nuclear weapons, 7,580 tanks, 1,700 fighter planes, 144 naval ships, and eight nuclear submarines, far less than that of Russia, which tops the list with 13,000 nuclear weapons and 22,800 tanks.

There was much speculation about China’s military expenditure, with foreign institutes giving much higher estimates. The report, citing data from the National Bureau of Statistics, said China’s spending last year was $60.9 billion, below that of the US, France and the UK.

Ground Staffs’ Maintenance of PLA Air Force J-8D Fighter

Li Shaojun, a researcher with the CASS, told the Global Times that the US’ $607 billion expenditure last year was 132 percent higher than that of the other 10 countries studied.

Military expert Song Xiaojun said the military ranking, based on three indexes, is not persuasive as China’s military power is far from being in second place.

“China’s defense construction still falls behind the development of the national economy.” Song said. “If we are the second power, does it mean there is no need for us to develop our economy?”

Xu Guangyu, a member of the government-backed China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, expressed reservations toward the ranking as he thinks it should be evaluated historically and dynamically, instead of only using static data such as current military expenditure.

The missile reload of “RIF” air defense system of Type 051C Destroyer

“It’s more reasonable to put China after Russia,” General Xu said.

The report gives 60 percent weight to military expenditure and 20 percent to the number of troops and weaponry.

The idea is echoed by Ni Lexiong, a professor in the Politics Department of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, who pointed to the problem of the abuse of military spending.

“If the expenditure was all used to boost China’s military strength, it could be taken as a reliable factor to evaluate China’s military status,” Ni said, adding that the indexes such as the number of troops and weapons should only be used for ancient times, as they are unreliable and inefficient for the evaluation of modern military strength.

According to the report, the quality of weaponry owned by the 11 nations is not accounted for, as it is impossible to evaluate, though the report admits that there is a big difference in terms of performance.

“The more rational ranking should include indexes such as air assault capacity, military soft power and military theory,” Ni said.

A poll Thursday on huanqiu.com showed that 85.2 percent of nearly 1,800 participants believed the report overestimated China’s military strength, while only 12 percent agreed with the ranking. 43.1 percent supported the seventh-place ranking of China’s comprehensive national strength, with 35.6 percent and 21.3 percent saying it is higher or lower, respectively.

Li Shaojun, also a co-author of the military part of the report, conceded that he is aware that the result will be met with many challenges from the public, but that an explanation has been given as to how the evaluation was carried out.

“It is just the result of a study which has some strategic value. But it can’t be used to fit the reality,” Li said.

Gao Hua, a deputy researcher with the CASS who also participated in the study, stressed that the report does not intend to draw a conclusion on how China’s military power should be ranked globally. Instead, it attempts to explore the relevance between increasing military expenditure and the global financial downturn.

You may also be interested in

• December 2, 2009 — China taking on growing role in U.N. peacekeeping missions (1)
• November 11, 2009 — China grounds ’space force’ talk (2)
• November 9, 2009 — Obama confronts an Asia reshaped by China’s rise (1)
• November 4, 2009 — China’s military making strides in space: US general (0)
• November 1, 2009 — China’s PLA eyes future in space, air: air force commander (0)
• October 26, 2009 — We sticks to path of peaceful development: China’s second highest-ranking military officer (1)
• October 24, 2009 — Over 400 private enterprises become Military Contractors with PLA equipment R&D (0)
• October 22, 2009 — Admiral Robert Willard: Growing Chinese military creates uncertainty (0)
• October 17, 2009 — Chinese General outlooks Long-term strategic Sino-Australia military ties (1)
• October 10, 2009 — China’s military might should not be feared, says analyst (0)

By admin

Changing China

via Can China help stabilise Pakistan?.

East Asia Forum

via Thinking about the Asia Pacific Community.

Authors: Hadi Soesastro (CSIS, Jakarta) and Peter Drysdale (ANU, Canberra)

The idea that regional architecture in Asia and the Pacific is not up to the tasks it now needs to serve has been around for some time. It has been inspired in part by worries about the untidiness in the competing structures — across the Pacific, of APEC, and within East Asia, of ASEAN +3 and the East Asia Summit (EAS). There has also been a hankering after ‘robust’ regional institutions modelled on the arrangements in Europe or North America, however unsuited they are to Asia Pacific circumstances.

,

What is different about the thinking that led to Prime Minister Rudd’s Asia Pacific Community proposal is that these worries are incidental to its main strategic motivation. The Rudd idea is grounded in the reality of the big shifts taking place in the structure of regional and world power. These shifts in the structure of power have two main implications.

First, Asia’s growth is changing the structure of the world economy and shifting global economic power, and ultimately, strategic weight towards Asia, in particular China and India. Economic and political changes in Asia and the Pacific challenge the primacy of some dimensions of American power. These developments underline the gap in the framework for regional political and security dialogue in Asia and the role that such dialogue could play in helping to manage the long-term change in the structure of Asian economic and political power and political security relations between Asia and America.

Second, the scale of Asia’s impact on the global economy means that there is urgency in energising regional efforts to deliver on Asia’s global responsibilities – in the financial and macro-economy, in trade policy and on climate change – and how that might be assisted through regional structures.

Until the collapse of world financial markets and world trade in the global financial crisis, the East Asian region, including Australia, was preoccupied with managing all aspects of the China boom – the pressure on energy, resource and food markets, the macroeconomic pressures, the looming foreign direct investment and commercial presence – and beginning to think about its long-term political consequences. India too was more and more caught up in the wave. All was premised on the continuing strength of North American and European markets.

East Asian economies should have been more conscious of their role on the world stage and the need to reposition quickly to manage the global system consequences of their own economic success and the dangers presented to its sustainability that the huge imbalances had created on the way. East Asia bore no responsibility for America’s squandering the beneficence of East Asia’s success – the apparently never-ending supply of cheap credit negligently guarded by the private and public custodians of the developed world’s financial system. But in this and in many other global system-making or system-destroying economic and political affairs, East Asia had significant prudential responsibility and it failed collectively at every stage to exercise it.

The reason for this failure is simple.

Despite the emergence of East Asia as a major economic force in the world – China, Japan and the rest of East Asia through to Australia and New Zealand reaching out to India – the East Asian economies collectively could not step up to the mark because regional structures were still not up to the task of effective global participation. The stage was still set for the wrong play – reactive responses to regionalism in other parts of the world, the trivia of regional FTAs and ‘mickey mouse’ financial cooperation – and there was no platform on which to perform globally.

In East Asia, like elsewhere in the world, the risks that we now face in recovery from the global financial crisis, not only economically but also politically, are a consequence of failure in the architecture of governance, including regional architecture, that frustrated a coherent East Asian and international response to the big problems of the day in their global context.

The global financial crisis and the emergence of the G20 has changed all this dramatically and propelled the G20’s Asian members to assume a new role and their proper responsibilities in managing the world economic order. ASEAN is the fulcrum of Asian cooperation arrangements, including APEC, ARF, ASEAN+3 and the East Asian Summit (EAS) but, with the rise of the bigger powers in Asia, and the G20, this is changing.

How can regional architecture be restructured to relate effectively to the new global arrangements?

The starting point is to understand that, while they may have failed to connect Asia’s regional with its growing global interests and responsibilities and they have other weaknesses, the regional arrangements we have in place are huge assets in going forward. APEC is entrenched as the primary trans-Pacific arrangement. ASEAN+3 and the East Asian Summit have assumed an important role in developing the Asian regional agenda. APEC, in its first twenty years, has provided a workable strategy in trade and economic diplomacy in East Asia and the Pacific supporting policies of liberalisation and structural reform, organised around the principle of open regionalism (a strategy well suited to the development, objectives and diversity of the Asia Pacific region). But after the Asian financial crisis and the global financial crisis, these regional arrangements (APEC, ASEAN +3, ASEAN+6) must now relate more strategically to the global arrangements (the G20 group). And there is a whole new political and security agenda to navigate within the Asia Pacific region.

Clearly, the Asia Pacific Community idea needs to relate to these established regional structures – APEC and East Asian arrangements – if it is to be both accepted and serve its underlying political-security purpose. It will only be worthwhile and practical if it limits dialogue to the major players. Hence, although it cannot encompass all APEC’s membership, or all the membership of EAS, a dialogue on political and security affairs needs to represent both as they are presently constituted. It needs to link to, be coordinated with, and draw on the base of all of the established trans-Pacific and East Asian arrangements.

While none of the existing regional institutions addresses all of the key dimensions of regional cooperation that they now need to – providing a collective forum for regional leaders to address the full range of regional and global issues; dealing effectively with the consequences of economic integration, particularly its trade and investment but also its financial and macro-economic dimensions; addressing issues of political change and security; and educating the public and opinion leaders about the region – nor should any one organisation need to perform all these roles. Each of these forums has evolved to serve some or other of these roles and they can all make an input across the range of issues that are now important.

This points to the need for a new heads of government meeting that transcends APEC and EAS (encompassing the Rudd and Hatoyama proposals) that can address the full range of regional and global issues, including issues that might arise in APEC, EAS, ARF or other regional forums and feed into the G20 and other global processes. This summit could eventually constitute an Asia Pacific Council, underpinning the continued development of the regional community. It would not need its own secretariat but draw on APEC and the ASEAN-based groups to develop issues for consideration.

There may be sensitivities in creating a new summit involving a limited number of countries, the ‘larger’ players in Asia and the Pacific. But so long as it is structured so that it is representative of all the regional arrangements, these sensitivities need not be important. The most practical proposal and most logical starting point is that this summit should begin by including the Asia Pacific members of the G20, and meet adjunct to the APEC summit. A dialogue among these countries does not entail creating an additional institution as G20 leaders will continue to meet beyond the current financial crisis, encompass the core players in APEC and EAS and meet in conjunction with the annual APEC summit . These are all  important considerations in taking the next steps towards realising vision of an Asia Pacific and East Asian Community.

The clear message is that ‘no one wants more meetings’ and that there is ‘no appetite for additional institutions.’ But there is strong support for developing more effective alignment of regional strategic purpose, a sentiment that is at the core of the idea of an Asia Pacific Community.

If this is an idea that seeks to anticipate and shape our regional political and economic future, it is an idea that cannot be put on hold, take a decade to implement or wait until the United States signs on to EAS, an ASEAN-based, primarily Asian-oriented and still nascent grouping.

The next APEC meeting in Japan, provides an excellent opportunity to convene a side-dialogue of this group, including India, on these issues, likely just prior to the G20 meetings in Seoul, to lay the foundations for a representative Asia Pacific Council that can give leadership to taking the Asia Pacific Community idea forward.

Dr Hadi Soesastro is a senior economist with CSIS in Jakarta and Peter Drysdale is Emeritus Professor in the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University. The original version of this essay was submitted as background to the Asia Pacific Community Conference held in Sydney at the instigation of Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 3-5 December 2009.

via ‘China building airstrips along LAC’, govt says no need to worry (The Times of India).

With reports suggesting China was building over two dozen new airstrips along the Line of Actual Control, Pallam Raju said there was no need to be worried as India was adequately strengthening itself…..

via China boost to Pak military troubles India.

Warships, fighters, missiles and millions in aid, Islamabad has it all
Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, November 27
The ongoing military relationship between China and Pakistan is worrying India. Defence Minister AK Antony today hit out at China saying the “increasing nexus between China and Pakistan remains an area of serious concern ….. we have to carry out continuous appraisals of Chinese military capabilities and shape our responses accordingly”.

He was speaking at the 44th foundation day celebrations of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in the Capital.

“India wants to develop a friendly and cordial relationship with its neighbours including China. We continue our efforts. At the same time, there are issues that are a matter of concern to us,” he said. Antony’s fears are not misplaced. New Delhi feels the China-Pakistan military nexus is detrimental to its interests and the strategic balance in the South Asian region.

Another area of concern for India is Chinese transfer of equipment and technology for Pakistan’s nuclear weapon programme. China has helped Pakistan build two nuclear reactors in the Punjab province and continues to support its nuclear programme.

China is Pakistan’s largest defence supplier. These include short-range ballistic missiles, fighter aircraft, frigates with helicopters, T-85 tanks, jet trainers, besides arms and ammunition.

Pakistan is scheduled to get the second of the four warships China is building for it next month. PNS Shamsheer, the frigate class warship F 22P, has anti-submarine warfare capabilities and armed choppers on board. In July this year, just days after India had launched its first N- powered submarine, China had handed over the first warship to Pakistan. Three of these ships will be built at a Chinese port, while the fourth one will be built in Pakistan.

Just last week, the two neighbours of India had announced that they were co-developing a fighter jet named JF-17. The production facilities of the same will be housed in Pakistan, while China will provide most of the parts that includes a Russian-built engine. Separately, China has already agreed to supply some 36 J-10 fighters to Pakistan. The single-engine fighter is somewhere close to the Mirage-2000 owned by India.

In the past, the Chinese have supplied Pakistan with K-8 jet trainers, Al-Khalid tanks and Al-Zarar tanks. Both have lower capability than India’s T-90 tanks. China has also supplied small arms and ammunition besides having built a ballistic-missile manufacturing facility near Rawalpindi to develop the 750-km-range, solid-fuel Shaheen-1 missile for Pakistan.

Apart from two nuclear reactors, a huge port at Gwadar near Karachi has been set up with Chinese aid. In the second project, China has pumped in 80 per cent of the expenses, say sources.

However, Antony was hopeful that China would reciprocate India’s initiatives aimed at mutual prosperity and understanding.

via China-Pakistan military links upset India.

India signalled its deep unease over growing defence ties between China and Pakistan when A.K. Antony, the defence minister, said the partnership was a “serious concern” to New Delhi…