China’s border row with India has misfired, says regional security expert

[shree835]

China’s three-week border stand-off during April in Ladakh, in Indian-administered Kashmir, had misfired, an Indian security expert told a forum in Manila, saying Beijing’s move galvanised Indian leaders into finally sealing an historic security deal with Japan.

The dispute strained ties between the nuclear-armed neighbours, but both sides pulled troops back ahead of a visit to New Delhi by Premier Li Keqiang, who agreed to fresh talks to settle their long-running border row.
[India could help provide] security architecture in the region to restrain China

Retired army major general Vinod Saighal, saw the subsequent India-Japan deal last month as possibly a signal that Japan and India were in the process of setting themselves up as the linchpin of a new security system in Asia, that could attract Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea and Myanmar.

He said Australia and Indonesia would also be viewing it favourably.

“The US had been pushing India in this direction as part of its rebalancing strategy. After the US used the term Indo-Pacific, Australia and Japan have embraced it,” he said.

Saighal, who wrote Restructuring South Asian Security, was speaking at a forum on “India’s expanding maritime interests in Southeast Asia” at the University of the Philippines Asian Centre.

Saighal said India could help provide “a security architecture in the region to restrain China so that the cost of aggression would be much too heavy. If you have that architecture in place, China will not attempt anything”.

Saighal said India was in a position to contribute to that set-up, citing a recent successful underwater maiden test firing of a BrahMos supersonic cruise missile from a submarine in the Bay of Bengal.

He hinted at its implication in disputes over the South China Sea. “There is cautious talk in some strategic circles that were India to provide the BrahMos missile to Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, it has the potential to become a game changer.”

He said India’s role would be to restrain China “from dreaming its new-fangled dream in a manner that conflict breaks out in the region”. He described mainland China’s dream as a “dynamic expansion model” fuelled by fast economic growth and a desire to push beyond its core interests in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang – and into India’s Arunachal Pradesh province, most of the South China Sea, and the Diaoyu islands, which Japan calls the Senkakus.

Saighal noted that a white paper on defence, that China issued in April, for the first time in many years omits the promise that China will never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

A senior Philippine navy official said India and the Philippines had developed a “relationship where the Philippine navy now sends [to India] some of its officers to train in … anti-submarine warfare”.

Commodore Caesar Taccad, deputy commander of the Philippine navy, agreed that India could potentially complement the US as a regional stabiliser and become the “friendly partner” that the Philippines and other “Southeast Asian countries which suffer China’s aggressiveness in the South China” are looking for. But Taccad said that China was likely to retaliate if India waded into the South China Sea dispute.

Philippine coastguard Captain Rudyard Somera said India had the third largest naval force in Asia and if it collaborated with Japan, their combined forces would pose a credible challenge to Chinese forces.

The Philippines sent a fresh batch of marines and supplies to a shoal in the disputed South China Sea, where a Chinese warship and surveillance vessels appeared last month and triggered a new stand-off, Philippine Defence Secretary Voltaire Gazmin said yesterday.

The marines replaced troops at the Second Thomas Shoal, locally known as Ayungin Shoal. They are stationed in a decrepit military hospital ship that ran aground in 1999. It has since become an awkward symbol of Philippine sovereignty.


http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1264524/chinas-border-row-india-has-misfired-says-regional-security-expert

 

[President]

Good article..way to go for a muti nation security pact..the bully needs to be thrown back in to his hood

 

[Genesis]

This "expert" is either stupid or just blind.

Back in the warring states in China. 7 states exist. One is the eventual ruling state, Qin. The other six attempted an Alliance to bring down Qin through an masterful politician called Su Qin.

The Alliance on paper was stronger, but each individually was much weaker. The Qin politician used his diplomacy skills to dissolve the alliance and paved the way to eventual unification by Qin.

He used the common mistrust, the weakness of the weaker states, and used bribes, and other means to stop a few other nations. The Alliance collapsed before it even did anything meaningful.

The 6 states, were much like Europe in the sense they had much in common, as well as differences. The proposed alliance by this author has nothing, and much like BRICS, there power, interest and everything else has pretty much nothing in common, and even worse, some of these countries are developed or soon to be developed like SK, Japan and Australia, while some are pretty low on the food chain.

Moral of the story, unlike Nato where US is the undisputed leader and has command over all Allied forces, there isn't and won't be a command structure that would work in a India Japan + whatever.

India won't listen to Japanese command, and I know the Japanese won't listen to Indians, Vietnam and Philippines also won't listen to another's command, while Australia and Indonesia has at least some bad feelings, from my understanding.

With out an effective Chain of command, a mistrust between the countries, economic interests with China as well as countries friendly with China, European and American interests with China and other countries.

All these things are things that would doom any alliance against China. All China has to do is offer unification for South Korea, negotiate with Vietnam and Philippines on a common ground (they won't really want to go to war with China so the end result is irrelevent, all it needs is to delay or stop them from taking action) and the way US China trade is going, US will do all it could to hold back Japan.

India, let's face it won't move alone, Australia loves Chinese Yuan, while Indonesia, Malaysia somehow seems indifferent to the SCS issue.

No there won't be an Anti China Alliance

 

[nair]

I would say if India want to be a stronger nation, then it has to be on India's ability and strength not thru deals with other countries.... ( Yes those deals should supplement.....)

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

This "expert" is either stupid or just blind.

Back in the warring states in China. 7 states exist. One is the eventual ruling state, Qin. The other six attempted an Alliance to bring down Qin through an masterful politician called Su Qin.

The Alliance on paper was stronger, but each individually was much weaker. The Qin politician used his diplomacy skills to dissolve the alliance and paved the way to eventual unification by Qin.

He used the common mistrust, the weakness of the weaker states, and used bribes, and other means to stop a few other nations. The Alliance collapsed before it even did anything meaningful.

The 6 states, were much like Europe in the sense they had much in common, as well as differences. The proposed alliance by this author has nothing, and much like BRICS, there power, interest and everything else has pretty much nothing in common, and even worse, some of these countries are developed or soon to be developed like SK, Japan and Australia, while some are pretty low on the food chain.

Moral of the story, unlike Nato where US is the undisputed leader and has command over all Allied forces, there isn't and won't be a command structure that would work in a India Japan + whatever.

India won't listen to Japanese command, and I know the Japanese won't listen to Indians, Vietnam and Philippines also won't listen to another's command, while Australia and Indonesia has at least some bad feelings, from my understanding.

With out an effective Chain of command, a mistrust between the countries, economic interests with China as well as countries friendly with China, European and American interests with China and other countries.

All these things are things that would doom any alliance against China. All China has to do is offer unification for South Korea, negotiate with Vietnam and Philippines on a common ground (they won't really want to go to war with China so the end result is irrelevent, all it needs is to delay or stop them from taking action) and the way US China trade is going, US will do all it could to hold back Japan.

India, let's face it won't move alone, Australia loves Chinese Yuan, while Indonesia, Malaysia somehow seems indifferent to the SCS issue.

No there won't be an Anti China Alliance

Not unless china attacks any nation,no one wants to oppose china unless threatened without reason.

 

[Genesis]

Not unless china attacks any nation,no one wants to oppose china unless threatened without reason.

India was actually taken over, it's sovereignty threatened, did the Princely states, bind together? No I'm afraid, it takes far more than Threats to bind nations together. It takes leaders and people who are willing to be team players.

It's a lot harder than it sounds, you been in teams I assume?

 

[nair]

India was actually taken over, it's sovereignty threatened, did the Princely states, bind together? No I'm afraid, it takes far more than Threats to bind nations together. It takes leaders and people who are willing to be team players.

It's a lot harder than it sounds, you been in teams I assume?

When did some one taken over india???? Yes sovereignty may be during a war.... Btw you havent read the article properly to have a feeling that those pricely state is going to help india in trouble..... Its just a thought mate.... nothing materialized.... and my dear friend indian leadership know what is good for the country.....

 

[Genesis]

When did some one taken over india???? Yes sovereignty may be during a war.... Btw you havent read the article properly to have a feeling that those pricely state is going to help india in trouble..... Its just a thought mate.... nothing materialized.... and my dear friend indian leadership know what is good for the country.....

Talking about the British India period. There are no princely states any more or am I mistaken?

As to politicians, they may know what's best, but that doesn't mean they would do it. If you know you working under someone who started later than you at work, or less capable, or something like that is beneficial would you do it? What about someone you mistrust or hates or thinks inferior?

What if you had to sacrifice personal gains to help the group? Would you do it?

Some might, but most wouldn't and that's where the problems is.

 

[jetti]

Talking about the British India period. There are no princely states any more or am I mistaken?

As to politicians, they may know what's best, but that doesn't mean they would do it. If you know you working under someone who started later than you at work, or less capable, or something like that is beneficial would you do it? What about someone you mistrust or hates or thinks inferior?

What if you had to sacrifice personal gains to help the group? Would you do it?

Some might, but most wouldn't and that's where the problems is.

While it is a fact that India wasnt a unified political entity until 1947 (if you discount the Mauryan period) the leadership which you are saying came from the various HIndu freedom fighters and also the Congress to an extent.
The princely states did not have asense of nationhood at that time. Also Indians need to work doubly hard to maintain this hard fought freedom and unification for the very reason that the concept of nationhood itslef is weak , India being politically more like a stronger EU than a USA.

 

[Tractor]

He said India’s role would be to restrain China “from dreaming its new-fangled dream in a manner that conflict breaks out in the region”. He described mainland China’s dream as a “dynamic expansion model” fuelled by fast economic growth and a desire to push beyond its core interests in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang – and into India’s Arunachal Pradesh province, most of the South China Sea, and the Diaoyu islands, which Japan calls the Senkakus.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...s-regional-security-expert.html#ixzz2WipG8dre

The so called dynamic expansion of China mainly focus on India’s Arunachal Pradesh and Senkaku and other little sea islands just existing to be ignored.

 

[nair]

Talking about the British India period. There are no princely states any more or am I mistaken?

As to politicians, they may know what's best, but that doesn't mean they would do it. If you know you working under someone who started later than you at work, or less capable, or something like that is beneficial would you do it? What about someone you mistrust or hates or thinks inferior?

What if you had to sacrifice personal gains to help the group? Would you do it?

Some might, but most wouldn't and that's where the problems is.

I am sorry mate your knowledge on Indian history is Poor..... Before British there was no india....So the question of sovereignty doesnt araise.....

My statement on indian leadership was clear..... Ie... There was indirect pressure on india even before this boarder dispute to have a partnership with those countries whom you called "Princy states".... But india had a very clear stand.....

 

[BDforever]

LOL India should not trust in Yankees, America changes side very frequently. Once China become superpower , America will started taking side of China, even may offer China lets go we together rule the world.

 

[Genesis]

I am sorry mate your knowledge on Indian history is Poor..... Before British there was no india....So the question of sovereignty doesnt araise.....

My statement on indian leadership was clear..... Ie... There was indirect pressure on india even before this boarder dispute to have a partnership with those countries whom you called "Princy states".... But india had a very clear stand.....

see you avoided my question, can these countries work as well as the Allies did in WW2 if there isn't a country such as US taking the lead?

BTW even with the leadership it still had much problems that the Nazis and Japanese didn't have. The Burma campaign is a perfect example of how US, China, and British command not only failed to work together, but also took steps to undermine each other.

The Japanese elite troops in Burma at that time is more real threat to all party than China is today or am I mistaken?

 

[Bang Galore]

India was actually taken over, it's sovereignty threatened, did the Princely states, bind together? No I'm afraid, it takes far more than Threats to bind nations together. It takes leaders and people who are willing to be team players.

It's a lot harder than it sounds, you been in teams I assume?

I take your point on a general perception of threat not being enough to unite but you are misinformed about the likely Indian reaction, especially in the face of an immediate & focused threat.. Indians reaction can be judged by how they reacted the last time such an event happened. Kargil(1999) united India more than any other incident. Any reading of newspaper articles will show that. It happened across the length & breadth of India with no exceptions. A serious threat/conflict will always unite Indians. Indians may differ about how to deal with China but in the event of any conflict/ serious threat, would quickly close ranks

 

[Dillinger]

LOL India should not trust in Yankees, America changes side very frequently. Once China become superpower , America will started taking side of China, even may offer China lets go we together rule the world.

We don't trust the yankees, why do you think they're still splitting their hair over the nuclear liability bill we imposed even after they were nice enough to get us that NSG waiver..which we got for supporting a vote against Iran in the IAEA which we then undid from our side by supporting their stand in the UN. Trust doesn't even figure into the picture here.


@Genesis The schema you think that we're following is not accurate at all. This is not a grand alliance to "fight" China. Nor are we going to be collectively declaring hostilities against China. A unified command and a defined hierarchy are essential for theater command in a war. THIS is not a war as much as it is a tussle. Our interests with Japan are primarily of a nature which promotes a shared framework for cooperation against any possible aggression. Unless you are conflating aggression with a proper conventional war your opinion on this remains largely misplaced.