Chindia Alert: You’ll be Living in their World Very Soon
aims to alert you to the threats and opportunities that China and India present. China and India require serious attention; case of ‘hidden dragon and crouching tiger’.
Without this attention, governments, businesses and, indeed, individuals may find themselves at a great disadvantage sooner rather than later.
The POSTs (front webpages) are mainly 'cuttings' from reliable sources, updated continuously.
The PAGEs (see Tabs, above) attempt to make the information more meaningful by putting some structure to the information we have researched and assembled since 2006.
Chinese groups calling for more ‘fighting spirit’ are getting the upper hand on those who favour calm and cooperation, government adviser says
From Hong Kong to Covid-19, trade to the South China Sea, Beijing and Washington are clashing on a growing number of fronts and in an increasingly aggressive way
Efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation between the US and China are failing, observers say. Photo: AFP
Moderates who favour dialogue and cooperation as a way to resolve China’s disputes with the United States are losing ground to hardline groups bent on taking the fight to Washington, according to political insiders and observers.
“There are two camps in China,” said a former state official who now serves as a government adviser and asked not to be named.
“One is stressing the combat spirit, the other is trying to relieve tensions. And the former has the upper hand.”
Relations between China and the US are under intense pressure. After Beijing moved to introduce a national security law for Hong Kong, US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Washington would begin eliminating the special policy exemptions it grants the city, as it no longer considers it autonomous from mainland China.
Beijing’s decision to enact a national security law for Hong Kong was met with anger from the US and other Western countries. Photo: Sam Tsang
The two nations have also clashed over trade, Xinjiang, Taiwan and the South China Sea, with the US passing several acts denouncing Beijing and sanctioning Chinese officials.
China has also experienced turbulence in its relations with other countries, including Australia and members of the European Union, mostly related to the Covid-19 pandemic
and Beijing’s efforts to position itself as a leader in the fight against the disease with its policy of “mask diplomacy”.
After Canberra appealed for an independent investigation to be carried out to determine the origins of the coronavirus, Beijing responded by imposing tariffs on imports of Australian barley, showing it is prepared to do more than just trade insults and accusations with its adversaries.
Pang Zhongying, a professor of international relations at Ocean University of China in Qingdao, said there was a worrying trend in China’s relations with other nations.
“We need political and diplomatic means to resolve the challenges we are facing, but … diplomatic methods have become undiplomatic,” he said.
“There are some who believe that problems can be solved through tough gestures, but this will never work. Without diplomacy, problems become confrontations.”
said during his annual press conference on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress last weekend that China and the United States must work together to prevent a new Cold War.
His words were echoed by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who said during a press conference after the closure of the legislative session on Thursday that the many challenges facing the China-US relations could only be resolved through cooperation.
However, the government adviser said there was often quite a chasm between what China’s leaders said and what happened in reality.
“Even though we say we do not want a Cold War, what is happening at the working level seems to be different.” he said. “The implementation of policies is not properly coordinated and often chaotic.”
Tensions between China and the US have been in a poor state since the start of a trade war almost two years ago. After multiple rounds of negotiations, the sides in January signed a phase one deal, but the positivity that created was short-lived.
In February, Beijing expelled three reporters from The Wall Street Journal over an article it deemed racist, while Washington has ramped up its military activity in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, and threatened to revoke the visas of Chinese students studying science and technology in the US over concerns they might be engaged in espionage.
Beijing has also used its state media and army of “Wolf Warrior” diplomats to promote its narrative, though many Chinese scholars and foreign policy advisers have said the latter’s nationalistic fervour has done more harm than good and appealed to Beijing to adopt a more conciliatory tone.
However, Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of Chinese tabloid Global Times, said China had no option but to stare down the US, which regarded the world’s most populous nation as its main rival.
“Being contained by the US is too high a price for China to pay,” he said. “I think the best thing people can do is forget the old days of China-US ties”.
Jin Canrong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, wrote in a recent newspaper article that Beijing’s actions – notably enacting a national security law for Hong Kong – showed it was uncompromising and ready to stand its ground against the US.
Wu Xinbo, dean of international studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, agreed, saying relations between the two countries were likely to worsen in the run-up to the US presidential election in November and that Beijing should be prepared for a fight.
But Adam Ni, director of China Policy Centre, a think tank in Canberra, said the issue was not that the moderate camp had been sidelined, but rather Beijing’s perception of the US had changed.
“Beijing has woken up to the idea that America’s tough policy on China will continue and it is expecting an escalation of the tensions,” he said.
“The centre of gravity in terms of Beijing’s perception of the US has shifted, in the same way the US perception of China has shifted towards a more negative image”.
Beijing was simply responding in kind to the hardline, assertive manner of the US, he said.
Countries must respect each others’ systems and be wary of US political forces who want to ‘hijack relations’, Wang tells press conference at ‘two sessions’
Beijing is not looking for confrontation and wants to work with Washington to fight coronavirus, minister says
Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China did not want to replace or change the US. Photo: Xinhua
China and the US should try to avoid a new cold war and find new ways to cooperate despite their differences, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Sunday.
“We need to be alert to efforts by some political forces in America to hijack China-US relations and who try to push the two countries towards a so-called ‘new cold war’.
“This is a dangerous attempt to turn back the course of history,” Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual parliamentary meetings known as the ‘two sessions’.
Ties between the two countries have further worsened due to escalating tensions over the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Voices calling for decoupling have been on the rise in the US, with some arguing that the two countries are edging towards a new cold war akin to that against the Soviet Union.
Wang called for the two countries to respect each other’s political systems and to find a way to get along despite their differences.
The two nations should step up cooperation on global pandemic control, and coordinate on macro policies to deal with the economic impact.
“China has no intention of changing the United States, much less replacing it. The US should give up the wishful thinking that it can change China.”
“For the benefit of the two peoples, as well as the future and well-being of humankind, China and the US should and must find a way to coexist peacefully despite the differences in system and cultures of the two societies.”
Wang said China will not seek confrontation with the United States, but China is determined to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity and development.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Mr Trump is making his first official visit to India
US President Donald Trump is expecting a raucous welcome on his first official state visit to India on Monday and Tuesday.
He follows a long line of leaders who have made the journey. Some of his predecessors were greeted enthusiastically; others stumbled through diplomatic gaffes; one even had a village named after him.
Can history be a guide to how this diplomatic tryst might go? Here’s a brief look at past visits, ranked in order of how they went.
The good: President Eisenhower
Let’s begin at the beginning.
Dwight D Eisenhower, the first US president to visit India, was greeted with a 21-gun salute when he landed in the national capital, Delhi, in December 1959. Huge crowds lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the World War Two hero in his open-top car – Mr Trump is expecting a similar reception in Ahmedabad city, where he will be doing a road show.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption Dwight D Eisenhower, pictured with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was the first US president to make the trip
The warmth between President Eisenhower and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru helped during what was a rocky phase in US-India ties. This was early in the Cold war, when the US and Pakistan had become become close allies, and India insisted on staying neutral or “non-aligned”. Like today, relations with China were at the core of the India-US equation, with Washington pressuring Delhi to take an aggressive stance with Beijing on the issue of Tibet.
But, on the whole, Eisenhower’s four-day trip was billed a success. And nearly every US president on a state visit to India has emulated his itinerary: he laid flowers at Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial, took in the splendour of the Taj Mahal, addressed parliament and spoke at Delhi’s iconic Ramlila grounds, which, according to one news report, attracted one million people.
When he left, Nehru said he had taken with him “a piece of our heart”.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption President Eisenhower was greeted by large crowdsThe game-changer: Bill Clinton
If there was a game-changing visit, it would be Bill Clinton’s in March 2000 with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Clinton’s arrival came after a two-decade lull – neither Ronald Reagan nor George Bush Snr made the journey East. It came at a tricky time as Washington had imposed sanctions on Delhi following its 1999 test of a nuclear bomb.
But, according to Navtej Sarna, a former Indian Ambassador to the US, the five-day trip was “a joyous visit”. It included stops in Hyderabad, a southern city that was emerging as a tech hub, and Mumbai, India’s financial capital. “He came and saw the economic and cyber potential of India, and democracy in action,” says Mr Sarna.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Bill Clinton’s visit was described as “joyous”Mr Clinton also danced with villagers, took a tiger safari and sampled Delhi’s famously creamy black dal (lentils) at a luxury hotel that has since been associated with the president.
The country’s reaction is perhaps best expressed in this New York Times headline: “Clinton fever – a delighted India has all the symptoms.”
The nuclear deal: George W Bush
George W Bush, as Forbes magazine once put it, was the “best US president India’s ever had”. His three-day visit in March 2006 was a highlight in the two countries’ strategic relationship – especially in matters of trade and nuclear technology, subjects they have long wrangled over. His strong personal dynamic with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was hard to miss – after he left office, Mr Bush, a keen artist, even painted a portrait of Mr Singh.
The two leaders are credited for a historic but controversial nuclear deal, which was signed during Mr Bush’s visit. It brought India, which had for decades refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), out of isolation. Energy-hungry India got access to US civil nuclear technology in exchange for opening its nuclear facilities to inspection.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption George W Bush and Manmohan Singh had a very good relationshipHowever, while the visit was substantive, it was not as spectacular as others – there was no trip to the Taj, nor an address to parliament. But the timing was important. Anti-US sentiment over the invasion of Iraq was running high – left-wing MPs had staged a protest against Mr Bush’s visit, and there were demonstrations in other parts of India.
Double visit: Barack Obama
Barack Obama was the only president to make two official visits. First, in 2010 with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and then in 2015 with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
On his first visit – in a break from the past – he landed in Mumbai, instead of Delhi, with a large trade delegation. This was not just about economic ties but a show of solidarity following the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008, which killed 166 people. Mr and Mrs Obama even stayed at the Taj Mahal hotel, one of the main targets.
It was significant that the US president declared support for India to join a reformed and expanded UN Security Council, says Alyssa Ayres, a former US deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia. “That all these years later nothing has changed in the UN system is another matter, but that was a major policy shift for the United States.”
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption Barack Obama visited India twiceMr Obama returned in 2015 as chief guest at India’s Republic Day celebrations, at PM Modi’s invitation. Trade, defence and climate change were at the heart of the talks. The trip also emphasised an Indo-Pacific strategy, where both leaders expressed unease over Beijing’s provocations in the South China Sea.
The not-so-good: Jimmy Carter
Although Jimmy Carter’s two-day visit in 1978 was a thaw in India-US relations, it was not free of hiccups.
With some 500 reporters in tow, Carter followed a packed itinerary: he met Prime Minister Morarji Desai, addressed a joint session of parliament, went to the Taj Mahal, and dropped by a village just outside Delhi.
The village, Chuma Kheragaon, had a personal connection: Carter’s mother, Lillian, had visited here when she was in India as a member of the Peace Corps in the late 1960s. So when Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, made the trip, they gave the village money and its first television set. It was even renamed “Carterpuri”, a moniker it still holds.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption Jimmy Carter being greeted by villagers of ‘Carterpuri’But beyond the photo-ops, India and the US were sparring. India was building its nuclear programme, and had conducted its first test in 1974. The US wanted India to sign the NPF, which sought to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. But India refused, saying the agreement discriminated against developing countries.
In a leaked conversation that made headlines and threatened to derail the visit, Mr Carter promised his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, a “very cold and very blunt” letter to Desai. The two leaders signed a declaration, promising greater global co-operation, but Carter left India without the assurances he had hoped for.
The ugly: Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon was no stranger to India when he arrived in August 1969 for a day-long state visit. He had been here as vice-president in 1953, and before that on personal trips. But, by all accounts, he wasn’t a fan.
“Nixon disliked Indians in general and despised [Prime Minister] Indira Gandhi,” according to Gary Bass, author of Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide. And, he adds, the feeling was said to be mutual.
This was also at the height of the Cold War, and India’s non-alignment policy “appalled” American presidents. Mr Bass says that under Gandhi, India’s neutrality had turned into a “noticeably pro-Soviet foreign policy”.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Richard Nixon waves to the crowds alongside Mohammad Hidyatullah, India’s acting presidentThe relationship only turned frostier after the trip as India backed Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in its fight for independence from Pakistan, a close American ally. The differences were laid bare when Gandhi visited the White House in 1971. Declassified state department cables later revealed that Nixon referred to her as an “old witch”.
And the future: Donald Trump
The US and India have certainly had their ups and downs, but during the last official visit in 2015, Mr Obama and Mr Modi signed a declaration of friendship: “Chalein saath saath (Let’s move forward together)…” it began.
President Trump’s visit will take the relationship forward, but it’s unclear how.
Image copyright AFP
His arrival in Ahmedabad, the main city in PM Modi’s home state of Gujarat, followed by a big arena event, is expected to draw a massive crowd. It will echo President Eisenhower’s rally in Delhi years ago, perhaps cementing the personal ties between the two leaders.
But while Mr Trump’s trip will be packed with pageantry, it could be light on policy. Unlike other presidential visits, this one is not expected to yield concrete agreements, with the trade deal Mr Trump so badly wants looking unlikely.
TOKYO (Reuters) – China’s growing military might has replaced North Korean belligerence as the main security threat to Japan, Tokyo’s annual defence review indicated on Thursday, despite signs that Pyongyang could have nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.
The document’s security assessment on China comes after a section on Japan’s ally, the United States, the first time Beijing has achieved second place in the Defence White Paper and pushing North Korea into third position.
Russia, deemed by Japan as its primary threat during the Cold War, was in fourth place.
“The reality is that China is rapidly increasing military spending, and so people can grasp that we need more pages,” Defence Minister Taro Kono said at a media briefing.
“China is deploying air and sea assets in the Western Pacific and through the Tsushima Strait into the Sea of Japan with greater frequency.”
China’s Foreign Ministry expressed displeasure with the report.
China will not accept Japan’s “groundless criticism” of its normal national defence and military activities, spokesman Geng Shuang said at a press briefing in Beijing.
Japan has raised defence spending by a tenth over the past seven years to counter military advances by Beijing and Pyongyang, including defences against North Korean missiles which may carry nuclear warheads, the paper said.
North Korea has conducted short-range missile launches this year that Tokyo believes show Pyongyang is developing projectiles to evade its Aegis ballistic missile defences.
To stay ahead of China’s modernising military, Japan is buying U.S.-made stealth fighters and other advanced weapons.
In its latest budget request, Japan’s military asked for 115.6 billion yen ($1.1 billion) to buy nine Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) F-35 stealth fighters, including six short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variants to operate from converted helicopter carriers.
The stealth jets, U.S.-made interceptor missiles and other equipment are part of a proposed 1.2% increase in defence spending to a record 5.32 trillion yen in the year starting April 1.
By comparison, Chinese military spending is set to rise this year by 7.5% to about $177 billion from 2018, more than three times that of Japan. Beijing is developing weapons such as stealth fighters and aircraft carriers that are helping it expand the range and scope of military operations.
Once largely confined to operating close to the Chinese coast, Beijing now routinely sends its air and sea patrols near Japan’s western Okinawa islands and into the Western Pacific.
China has frequently rebuffed concerns about its military spending and intentions, including an increased presence in the disputed South China Sea, and says it only desires peaceful development.
The Defence White Paper said Chinese patrols in waters and skies near Japanese territory are “a national security concern”.
The paper downgraded fellow U.S. ally, South Korea, which recently pulled out of an intelligence sharing pact with Japan amid a dispute over their shared wartime history. That could weaken efforts to contain North Korean threats, analysts said.
Other allies, including Australia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and India, feature more prominently in the defence paper.
South Korean government officials took issue with the White Paper’s reference to ownership of an island in the Sea of Japan that is also claimed and controlled by South Korea. The outcrop is known as Dokdo in Seoul and Takeshima in Tokyo.
“Our government strongly protests Japan’s repeated claim. The Japanese government should acknowledge that it is not helpful for bilateral relations,” South Korea’s foreign ministry said.
US president likely had Beijing ‘on his mind’ when he made his audacious offer, diplomat says
Proposal ‘could be interpreted as a very clear signal’ to China and Denmark that the US sees Greenland as part of an exclusive strategic zone, academic says
China has been building closer ties with Greenland in recent years. Photo: Reuters
US President Donald Trump’s eyebrow-raising idea to buy Greenland from Denmark last month epitomised what analysts say is Washington’s fear of the growing interplay of Chinese money, Russian aggression and Arctic political division.
Of all the countries involved in the region, Denmark is feeling the most heat, and not just because Trump recently cancelled a trip and called its Prime Minister Mette Frederikse “nasty” for describing his plan to buy the world’s largest island “absurd”.
Over the past few years, both of Denmark’s self-ruled governments – Greenland and the Faroe Islands – have increasingly turned to China for commercial deals, adding weight to Beijing’s growing strategic influence in the vast area that forms the common backyard of Europe, North America and Russia.
Russia seeks Chinese support in developing Arctic shipping routes
Greenland is of particular concern to the White House and the Pentagon as it is home to the US Thule Air Force Base, located far above the polar circle and which served as the first line of defence during the cold war.
Nowadays, the island is also strategically important for the US ballistic missile early warning system, as the shortest route from Europe to North America goes via the ice-cloaked, resource-rich territory.
“Though it’s difficult to tell the motivations of President Trump, he likely had China on his mind with his Greenland offer,” said a Beijing-based diplomat, who asked not to be named.
The US was likely to step up its presence in Greenland in the future, the person said.
In May, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused China and Russia of introducing a strategic power struggle into the Arctic region and described Beijing’s behaviour there as aggressive.
When Greenland signalled an interest in engaging a Chinese state-owned company to build two airports in 2017 – the island’s prime minister flew to Beijing to appeal for financial backing – Copenhagen stepped in amid US pressure, reluctantly agreeing to finance the projects from the public coffers.
Denmark’s reluctance stems from a long-standing mistrust between Copenhagen and Greenland, as the island’s quest for economic development is viewed by the Danes as an attempt to shore up capital to push for a future independence movement.
“There is no doubt that the US foreign and security policy community is becoming far more interested in Greenland as a strategic asset,” said Andreas Bøje Forsby, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen’s Nordic Institute of Asian Studies.
“Proposing to buy Greenland could be interpreted as a very clear signal to both China and Denmark that Greenland is part of an exclusive American strategic zone,” he said.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederikse described Donald Trump’s plan to buy Greenland as “absurd”. Photo: Reuters
The government of the Faroe Islands – an archipelago located between Scotland, Norway and Iceland – has a similar readiness to engage with China but for a different purpose.
Unlike Greenland, there are no immediate political movements calling for independence from Denmark, making its overall relationship with Copenhagen more amiable.
This month, the Faroese government will open a liaison office in Beijing, located within the Danish embassy.
“Our top priority is to have a free-trade agreement with China,” Sigmundur Isfeld, the first head of the Faroe Islands’ representation to Beijing, said.
US defence report flags China’s expanding military reach in the Arctic
With Norway – a key competitor of the Faroes in the fishing and export industries – eyeing a similar arrangement with China, the time was ripe to clinch a deal, he said.
“It is a challenge for us … we need to get in the game.”
Although part of Denmark, the Faroe Islands are not part of the European Union and therefore have to form separate trade agreements with other countries.
“For example, there is an EU-Japan economic partnership agreement. It covers all EU nations, but it does not cover the Faroe Islands,” Isfeld said.
Trade between Greenland and China totalled US$126 million in 2108. Photo: AFP
China, for its part, has sought to exert its economic and cultural influence on the Faroes, which has a population of about 52,000 people.
, the embattled Chinese telecoms giant, has been working with the islands’ main telecoms provider for four years and is said to be finalising a plan for 5G upgrades across the archipelago.
Beijing also helped fund a project for a Chinese-Faroese dictionary.
With a population of about 56,000 people, Greenland is one of China’s smallest trading partners. In the first seven months of 2019, trade between the two was US$126 million, with Chinese imports of fish accounting for the bulk of the total.
The Greenland government’s annual political and economic report for 2019 said that strong demand for metals from China had contributed to mineral and mining projects in the country, though China’s transition to a less mineral-intensive economy could spell trouble for the future of the sector.
The island’s gross domestic product is expected to grow by 3 per cent this year, according to the report, with seafood – principally cod, halibut and prawns – set to continue to be its chief export.
The end of the Arctic as we know it
China’s attempts in recent years to expand its involvement in Greenland have run into roadblocks.
In 2016, a Chinese mining company expressed interest in taking over an abandoned marine station in Grønnedal, an offer that the Danish government turned down the following year. A Chinese state-owned construction company had also offered to build airports in Greenland, but withdrew its offer this year.
Also this year, China expanded its involvement in exporting from Kvanefjeld, one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earths and uranium, by creating a joint venture to process and export the resources.
Beijing has made clear its strategic ambitions in the region. Early last year, it unveiled its Polar Silk Road strategy, plotting the course for its future development goals in the region – including scientific, commercial, environmental preservation and resource extraction efforts.
It also aligned its Arctic interests with its Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese companies are encouraged to invest in building infrastructure along the routes and conduct commercial trial voyages to gauge feasibility.
Putin boasts of nuclear icebreaker fleet as he outlines Arctic expansion plans
Anders Rasmussen, a former Danish prime minister and erstwhile Nato secretary general, said in an article published in Atlantic magazine last month that with melting ice caps opening the Arctic Sea to shipping, Arctic sea lanes “will likely become another flashpoint of renewed competition among the great powers as climate change alters our world”.
It was a situation he said he found “regrettable, but inevitable”.
“Both China and Russia are interested in getting a foothold in Greenland, to expand their influence in the Arctic region,” Rasmussen said. “Instead of being a source of contention,
Greenland should serve to highlight how many interests the United States and Denmark have in common.”
CHINDIA ALERT: You'll be living in their world, very soon 