Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Bharat Verma's column on China and the Chinese Response

jul 20th, 2009

the han is shocked, shocked that we might think such a thing.

why on earth would 'peaceful' china attack india?

yeah, right.

i can tell you a good reason just like they were killing uighurs: they want empire, and they want lebensraum, and they want raw materials.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Radha
Date: Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Subject: Bharat Verma's column on China and the Chinese Response
To:


Dear all, most of you would have read Capt. Bharat Verma's column on China. When wi wrote to him asking him if it indeed were he or his namesake, he affirmed it and also sent me the Chinese response to his column. I give you all the URL from the Vigil website where both columns are back to back. For those who already have Capt. Verma's column, i reproduce the text of the Chinese response as text. regards, RR
 
 

The Chinese Response

Illusion of "China's Attack on India Before 2012"

ByChen Xiaochen, Beijing,Published:July 17,2009
Source: http://www.chinastakes.com

The 2000 km border between China and India has been a notable absence from press headlines in the years since then-Indian PM Vajpayee's 2003 visit to Beijing. Tensions, however, have risen again as India announced last month a plan to deploy two additional army divisions and two air force squadrons of Su-30 Fighter Unit, some 60,000 soldiers in total, in a disputed border area in the southern part of Tibet, which India claims as its state of Arunachal Pradesh.

Adding fuel to the flames is an article by Bharat Verma, editor of Indian Defense Review, predicting that China will attack India before 2012, leaving only three years to Indian government for preparation.

According to Mr. Verma, "growing unrest in China" due in part to economic downturn will leave the Chinese government looking for something to "divert the attention of its own people from 'unprecedented' internal dissent, growing unemployment and financial problems." China will also want to strike India before the latter becomes powerful, which is the reason for the 2012 "deadline." India, with its growing affiliation with the West, is yet weak under China's fire.

But a "China's attack" is not going to happen, and one wonders at the basis for Mr. Verma's thinking. First, although it is true that China's macro-economy has taken a hit from the global financial crisis, the extent of the damage is under control. Recent statistics shows China's economy grew 7.1% in the first half of 2009, while its foreign exchange reserve has exceeded $2 trillion. China's stimulus plan has been effective and given people confidence. China will survive the global downturn as well or better than the rest of the world's economies.

And even if China's economy was really all that bad, would the government try to distract "unrest" by taking military actions against India? Mr Verma's reasoning rests on a lack of documentation. Looking into the past 60 years, China has no record of launching a war to divert public attention from anything. Moreover, while Mr. Verma supposes the Chinese Communist Party has no cards to play other than "invading India," the Party, widely experienced in dealing with domestic disputes, will hardly in only three years have run out of all options facing potential social instability. Moreover, even if Chinese leaders considered such an option, they would certainly be aware that an external war would severely jeopardize domestic affairs.

Other reasons the author mentions in the article are also vague. The Western powers would not take kindly to a Chinese conflict with India, leaving China rightfully reluctant to use force in any case other than extreme provocation. US forces well deployed in Afghanistan and Pakistan could check any China's military action in South Asia. And then there is also the nuclear problem: there has never been a war between two nuclear equipped nations, and both sides would have to be extremely cautious in decision-making, giving more room for less violent solutions.

Further, it is important to realize there is no reason for China to launch a war, against India in particular. Economic development, rather than military achievement, has long been the consensus of value among China's core leaders and citizens. Despite occasional calls to "Reoccupy South Tibet (occupied Chinese territory)," China's decision-making is always cautious. It is not possible to see a Chinese "incursion" into India, even into Tawang, an Indian-occupied Buddhist holy land over which China argues a resolute sovereignty.

Last but not least, China's strategy, even during the 1962 border war with India, has been mainly oriented towards the east, where Taiwan is its core interest, while the recent Xinjiang unrest highlights China's growing anti-terrorist tasks in the northwest – both issues are more important than the southwest border. If China were to be involved in a war within the next three years, as unlikely as that seems, the adversary would hardly be India. The best option, the sole option, open for the Chinese government is to negotiate around the disputed territory.

However, there is one scenario where there is possibility for war: an aggressive Indian policy toward China, a "New Forward Policy," may aggravate border disputes and push China to use force – despite China's appeal, as far as possible, for peaceful solutions.

Consider the 1959-1962 conflict, the only recorded war between China and India in the long history of their civilizations. After some slight friction with China in 1959, the Indian army implemented aggressive action known as its Forward Policy. The Chinese Army made a limited but successful counterattack in 1962.

Now, it seems "back to the future". Mr. Verma asserts another war will happen before 2012, a half century after the last, regrettable one. India has started to deploy more troops in the border area, similar to its Forward Policy 50 years ago. Is Mr. Verma's China-bashing merely a justification for more troops deployed along the border? Will India's "New Forward Policy", as the old one did 50 years ago, trigger a "2012 war?"

The answers lie mainly on the Indian side. Given China's relatively small military garrison in Tibet, Indian's 60,000 additional soldiers may largely break the balance. If India is as "pacific" as Mr. Verma says, and is sincere in its border negotiation, China-India friendship will remain. After all, China shares a long and mostly friendly cultural exchange with India as well as other neighbors. Now China is seeking deeper cooperation, wider coordination, and better consensus with India, especially in the global recession, and peace is a precondition for doing so. China wants to say, "We are on the same side," as the Indian Ambassador did in a recent interview in China. Thus, "China will attack India before 2012" is a provocative and inflammatory illusion.

(Chen Xiaochen serves as a journalist of editorial and comments in China Business News.)

 
 
 

2 comments:

Wildcat said...

This Chinese response is different from their standard rants in that they are saying in effect "oh, we are so weak! Two whole Indian divisions on the border! We are so peaceful!"

None of the chest thumping, about teaching India another lesson, no mention of panchsheel.

All this is cause to suspect they are up to no good.

Unknown said...

I am not one of those Indians (or NRIs) who take a perverse pleasure in insulting India yet I can't help pointing out that the Indian non-response to these potential threats is rooted in the usual Indian self-delusion of seeing the world as you wish it was and not as it really exists. With that disclaimer, here are a few comments.

1. Use of Nuclear weapons – India will never muster up the courage to use these, unless propped up by the West for their own selfish reasons of denying China a huge victory in order to prevent the emergence of the Chinese Frankenstein's monster. A country that allows itself to be jerked around by pathetic mobocracies like Bangladesh (recall the killing of 50-odd BSF soldiers by the BDR a few years back) is unlikely to have the stomach for a nuclear war. Indians are the archetypal clerks of Macaulay --- we make good doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants etc but haven't the faintest clue about power politics.

2. The “international community" will intervene and stop China – No, They won't. They didn’t /couldn’t stop China in Tibet. They’ve never stopped Pakistan from its terror-war against India. The Chinese, with their US$2 trillion of FX reserves and c.US$800 billion of US Treasuries, have the Americans by their balls (there’s no polite way of describing it!). And, India under the Kaangrayce is the village idiot of international geo-politics – completely incapable of understanding what’s happening around it, vulnerable to every bully who passes by, ready to be whipped/abused/raped, too incoherent even to make a forceful protest. Just like the Anglo-Saxons have watched passively all along as Pakistani Jihadis let off steam in India, the West will sit quietly and watch as the Chinese do a repeat of 1962 in India, unless things cross a threshold beyond which Western interests begin to get affected. India is likely to abandon territory and retreat. The last time round, it was under Chacha Nehru's watch; this time it will be under his imbecile great-grandson's watch.


3. The Chinese desire to be the Dada of the World – Where else will the Chinese find a large but meek whipping boy whom they can make an example out of and tell the world that it is they and not the Anglo-Saxons who call the shots now?