An Interesting–if Slanted–Look at the NSG Deliberations over the US-India Nuclear Deal

Posted by proliferationpresswm on September 16, 2008

An interesting—if bombastic—pro-Indian article into the deliberations of the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) the US-India nuclear deal.

Chief points: China mucked up passage by insisting Pakistan also receive a nuclear waiver. Also, the article highlights an interesting wrinkle of the US-India nuclear deal: Indian energy independence from Iran.

The article also expresses the visceral Indian support for the nuclear deal; a sharp constrast from the American public’s ignorance and indifference towards the soon-to-be approved agreement.

From Hari Sud’s article in the UPI Asia Online:

NSG works by consensus, which agrees to opinions reached by the group as a whole. Even one holdout with idealism in mind can put a spanner in the works. This is what a group lead by Austria, including New Zealand, Ireland, Netherlands and Norway did to India’s recent application for waiver. They held out for two consecutive NSG meetings and five rounds of negotiations. Idealism was the motive behind their moves. Under pressure from India and the U.S., they finally withdrew all objections and consented to the waiver of the U.S. prepared revised draft.

China played a negative role. They unenthusiastically supported the waiver, knowing fully well that the U.S. was hundred percent behind the move. They walked out of the meeting once in support of Austria, Ireland and New Zealand. In a bid to scuttle the deal, they demanded an airtight commitment from India to ban testing of any nuclear bombs, although they would not give any such commitment from their side. In addition they made a fresh case for Pakistan to be awarded the same special waiver, given to India. They knew that Pakistan is a nuclear proliferator, yet pleaded their case to endorse the Pakistani government’s support of their strategic plans in Asia. This last minute treachery from China, who earlier supported India, will never be forgotten.

If the NSG had not given the waiver, India still has adequate resources to power its growing economy with local coal and natural gas from Iran. However, this would have quadrupled India’s greenhouse gases emission from the current 1.1 billion tons a year to about 4 billion tons in 20 years and its impact on earth’s fragile environment would have been catastrophic. Nuclear energy will, however, cut India’s emissions by half.

China's vulnerability in Malacca Strait By Hari Sud

China's vulnerability in Malacca Strait
By Hari Sud
Column: Abroad View Published: March 20, 2009
TOOLBAR
Print Story
Add Comments
Email a friend
Watch this writer
Font size:

Toronto, ON, Canada, — The Strait of Malacca is where the Pacific Ocean meets the Indian Ocean. It is the route that China-bound oil shipments take. All India must do to prevent a Chinese invasion of its northeast or Kashmir is to block this route. With its naval build-up of the last 10 years, and especially its recently announced purchases, India could do this.
India has US-made submarine hunter-killer planes – Boeing P-8s equipped with Harpoon missiles – one Russian and one Indian-made aircraft carrier, French Scorpene attack submarines and an Indian-built nuclear submarine with missiles reaching hundreds of miles. It can arm its Russian and Indian-made destroyers and frigates with Brahmos sea-denial missiles, and has shore-based naval attack capability. The Chinese could not cope with this formidable force.

Add to this India's growing network-centric capability and the Chinese are completely outmaneuvered.

If China put together a large force to neutralize India at the western end of the Strait of Malacca, it would weaken its home naval defenses in the South China Sea. Hence, China will continue to posture and send its navy on Indian Ocean cruises – but a formidable opposition is already building.

Moving into the Indian Ocean prematurely was a wrong move on China's part. It alerted India and prompted a defensive build-up to counter China's advances. China's recent deployment of naval destroyers in the Gulf of Aden on anti-piracy missions revealed its newly acquired naval capability. An incident concocted by the Chinese press, in which an Indian Kilo-class submarine allegedly confronted a Chinese Aegis-class ship in the Gulf of Somalia, indicated China's deep concerns about the growing prowess of the Indian Navy.

All China's moves in the Indian Ocean – such as acquiring Coco Island from Myanmar and building up Gawadar Naval base in Pakistan – have been to intimidate India. India got the message and has begun building up its own naval forces. Its naval base in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, at the mouth of the Malacca Strait, gives India a big advantage.

China's offensive naval capability away from home has grown exponentially with the acquisition of nuclear submarines. It is refitting a Russian and a homemade aircraft carrier, which may be ready in seven years. Surveillance capability from Coco Island off the Myanmar coast has also enhanced its effectiveness.

Chins has four Sovremenny-class destroyers purchased from the Russians and delivered in 2000 and 2006. These are its most potent warships. Originally designed by the Soviets to attack US naval flotillas on the high seas, the Moskit anti-ship missile is a very potent weapon. But its limited range of 10 to 120 kilometers is lower than the Indian Brahmos sea-denial missile, with a range of 300 kilometers. Sovremenny-class ships also carry long- and short-range ship-to-shore missiles – effective if the Chinese get too close to Indian coastal bases.

China has launched its own “total weapons system” in its Aegis-equipped destroyers, developed from stolen and copied Russian technology to counter US Aegis-class ships on Taiwan patrol duty. Its capability to launch long-range anti-aircraft missiles and sea surveillance is noteworthy, but how closely the Chinese copy resembles the original is unknown.

Most noteworthy in China's naval arsenal is its fleet of submarines. In the last 10 years China has taken delivery of 12 Russian Kilo-class submarines. These, together with two new nuclear-powered submarines – the Jin class to carry ballistic missiles and Shang class attack submarines – are more potent than their ships. Nuclear ballistic missiles on board the Jin-class submarine are meant to intimidate the United States and Japan.

A large mix of these ships and submarines could travel to the Indian Ocean from China's newly built naval dock facilities on Hainan Island and confront India or the United States.

The private intelligence agency Stratfor has concluded that by 2015 China will have two aircraft carriers – one Chinese and one Russian, but refitted by China – and two to four nuclear submarines. But China faces immense challenges in building these. Without outside help, their reliability and effectiveness are in doubt.

India's naval expansion is not far behind. It is adding six conventional submarines from France and 33 other ships in the next five years. In addition, one or two nuclear submarines plus an aircraft carrier of Indian design and a refitted Russian one should be ready in the next two and eight years respectively.

Overall, India currently operates 134 ships, 16 submarines and two, possibly three aircraft carriers. Indian submarines are relatively modern. The French Scorpene submarines are stealth and independent propulsion and can stay under water for long periods. The nuclear submarines will carry 700-kilometer-range missiles.

One Indian nuclear submarine with its indigenous missile system is in the final phase of construction. If the Chinese position a nuclear submarine off the coast of India, the Indians can send their own nuclear submarine into position off the southern coast of China. This tit-for-tat deployment will deny China the advantage.

India's destroyers and frigates are equipped with longer-range supersonic Brahmos missiles and carry Barak-1 anti-missile defense systems. Its aircraft carrier is presently equipped with Sea Harrier jump jets, but these will be replaced with highly lethal naval version MIG-29Ks. The newer aircraft carriers will have more advanced weapons and aircraft.

It is the Indian P-8s, the newly ordered surveillance and submarine hunter-killer planes, that are a force to reckon with. They can pick out a submarine hundreds of miles from Indian shores and “kill” it with Harpoon missiles. Add to this the shore-based defense network and the enemy will have no place to hide or get away.

In addition, India's network-centric battlefield interconnectivity has greatly enhanced the navy's reach. It is a strategic force multiplier. Its availability to any navy enhances the entire spectrum of management including diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, strategic deterrence, trade and commerce and security.

India made its first inroads into network-centric warfare immediately after the Kargil War of 1999. The United States is the leader in this new concept but India, with its vast software development capability, is not far behind. At the moment the Indian navy is just about network enabled and is moving progressively toward the network-centric concept. A huge software and hardware development effort is underway.

Also India's newly constructed Kadamba naval base matches China's newly built facility on Hainan Island. When completed, it will be a naval base, air force station and naval armament depot with long-range missile silos. It is a US$8 billion facility, the third in a series of integrated navy bases on the country's east and west coasts. Kadamba will berth 42 ships, including aircraft carriers and submarines. It will repair and refit all navy ships and naval planes. It is a giant base with easy access to the Indian Ocean.

Hence, by 2015 India will have a formidable naval defense. Most of the Indian hardware has been built with outside help and is highly sophisticated, outclassing China-built hardware.

Therefore, a smaller but deadlier force is what China will face in the Indian Ocean. There is one wild card however – Pakistan, which could take advantage of India's preoccupation with the Malacca Strait to gain mileage for its own strategic aims.

In short, nobody can say that China's navy 10 years hence will be a pussycat. But in the Indian Ocean, China will face a much bigger challenge than it anticipated.

--

( Hari Sud is a retired vice president of CIL Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)

To me it always seemed the American FP is designed to an extent on the theory of Roman EMipre in its hey days. george Bush nevertheless acted the role of NERO in its new disguised form. Even the city on the Hill also designed on the Roman architecture and so the WH. But if we seriously study the decline of Roman empire, we can clearly infer that days of American hegemony is limited and the War in Af-Pak will mark the demise of US as a global police. Lets us recall the story of the fal lof Roman empire as objectively put forward by Gibbon.

According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[4] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle.

The question obviously arises will who will be the next global police. The analyst will point to China. But China wil say no thank you very much but we do not want ot be global police. But yes we will play a decisive role in the global affairs,and thus we will be a global responsible stake if we borrow the Robert Zoliek terminology over quoted by the western academia. China may take another 30 years to emerge as a super power but it is already asserting her dominant position in the global affairs and is getting ready to take on the American Hegemony in the Asia Pacific region.

The US decline and surrender to Chinese may not be a reality in a short time, but nevertheless the ice is braking down and the paper tiger is going to be exposed by the new Avtar of Chairman Mao. Hu Jintao, China;s fourth Generation leader is a neo-conservative and would not be easily accommodating in the global system of rule setting. Hu is earless to several demands of West when it came to stop the execution of UK citizen in Xinjiang China, and Dalai honeymoon trips to France and Capitol Hill. Hu seems determined to lead China where it will be difficult to look back.


to be contd...

i could have mentioned the Home Town of SHASHA where i spent my spring holiday hits time. I got some stuff at the wikipedia which are useful for having a basic idea about the region:
Hulunbuir (Mongolian: , Kölün buyir; Chinese: 呼伦贝尔; Pinyin: Hūlúnbèi'ěr) is a region that is governed as a prefecture-level city in northeastern Inner Mongolia, in the People's Republic of China. Its administrative center is located at Hailar District, its largest urban area.
Until October 10, 2001, Hulun Buir was administered as a League. The area is 263,953 km2 (101,913 sq mi) and population 2.710 million as of 2004, while the gross domestic product was RMB 21.326 billion. The jurisdiction area of the city is actually larger than many Chinese provinces (and 42 U.S. states), and Hulun Buir is recognized as the largest city in the world by area, although the actual urban agglomeration is just a very small part of the region, and the average population density of the area is very low.
Major scenic features are the high steppes of the Hulun Buir grasslands, the Hulun and Buir lakes (the latter partially in Mongolia), and the Khingan range. Hulun Buir borders Russia, Mongolia, Heilongjiang province and Hinggan League.
Historically, the eastern part of the area is also known as Barga.

Demographics (as of 2000)

ethnic group population share
Han 2,199,645 81.85%
Mongols 231,276 8.6%
Manchu 111,053 4.13%
Daur 70,287 2.62%
Hui 30,950 1.15%
Evenks 25,418 0.95%
Koreans 8,355 0.31%
Russians 4,741 0.18%
Oroqen 3,144 0.12%
Xibe 956 0.04%
Other 1,403 0.05%

CHINA STILL CANOT TAKE HEAD-ON WITH US

In the recent times China is making hue and cry as if it can challenge the US superpower in all the realms. But it seems to me that China is in the hurry of becoming superpower. The outspoken media and nostalgia to emerge as the most vibrant economy is now so evident that China is saying no to USA, as it did to EU when their leaders met DL. Now Chinese are selling of US T-Bonds and also planning to ban some of the US firms supplying arms to Taiwan. But the nevertheless it will harm the smooth rise of China her own power is of no match to the US high tech Military. This is also much more true because China is still surrounded by US Military presence in the region (JAPAN, S.KOREA, SINGAPORE, THAILAND, Afghanistan). China is becoming assertive and confronting US publically is a good sign of rise of Asian voice at the global forums. But strategically thinking China still needs to maintain a low profile as its grand leader suggested in late 1990s. The gap in military technology warfare of US and China may be much more wider than it is obvious to us. After all there is no match to the US defense budget of 700billion to Chinese 70 billion USD. Let China overtake the US economy sometime around 2020 and then it should claim the global leadership role. At the moment it will be premature and will be exposed to serious problems including grouping by US+JAPAN+INDIA+AUS+SING+ and many more democracies.

ALSO READ THIS: http://www.nst.com.my/articles/16patens/Article/index_html

REFLECTIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CHINESE GROWTH MIRACLE

1.山西黑砖窑事件。
年初，山西的黑砖窑事件被披露，实际上，黑砖窑现象不仅仅是存在于山西一个省份，在过去的几年中，类似的现象就不断被披露出来，涉及到的既有中西部不发达地区，也有沿海发达地区。但有关的报道并没有引起整个社会的足够重视。山西黑砖窑事件披露后，问题才引起广泛的重视和讨论。
但在这些讨论中，两个很重要的细节往往被忽视了。首先，这样的一种罪恶是由于多少钱而发生？根据有关的报道和调查，经营得比较好的砖窑，窑主和包工头一年的收益也就是三五万元钱，经营得一般的砖窑，窑主和包工头一年的收益也就是一两万元。也就是说，发生在黑砖窑中的罪恶，甚至是致死人命的罪恶，往往就是因为一两万、三五万元钱而发生。在被处理的曹生村的那个黑砖窑中，有一个叫赵延兵的打手因为打死了人而被判处死刑。令人深思的是，这样的一个凶手却不是为了一个很高的报酬去打人的。他过去也是一个奴工，也曾被包工头用气筒打他的脑袋。仅仅为了自己不被打，他成为打手，打死了人。第二个细节，是黑砖窑中的经济账。人们在评论黑砖窑的时候，对黑窑主和包工头有许多道义上的谴责。这无疑是正当的。但人们可以反问一句的是，就是这些黑窑主和包工头不黑，又当如何？有人算过黑砖窑的经济账，当中的问题非常有意义。这个砖窑承包给一个外地的包工头，包工头骗来30多个黑窑工进行生产，一年生产了300万块砖，按照协议以每块三分六卖给窑主，得到11万块钱。假定这个包工头自己一分钱也不要，这11万块钱怎么分？30多个人吃得再差，就吃窝头、凉拌圆白菜，大体上还得吃饱，第二天才有体力能干活。去掉劳工的伙食费，包工头还要养6条狼狗、几个打手，这些成本可能每年合计就得五六万块钱，去掉这五六万，还剩五六万，30个人来分，一个人能分多少钱？一年不到2000块钱，一个月100多块钱，这还是在包工头完全不要利润的情况下。从这里可以看出，黑砖窑不仅仅是一个道德的问题，这个现象可以凸显现在有些低端产业生存业态的状况。
2.重庆家乐福踩踏事件。
有人将其称之为“一桶食用油引发的血案”。2007年11月10日。家乐福沙坪坝店在10周年店庆促销活动中，推出了一个限时抢购桶装油的活动，活动油价很便宜，一桶只要39.9元，而之前的市场价为50元左右，因此前往抢购的市民特别多，很多市民都是凌晨三四点钟就赶来排队了。活动中，其东门入口处因群众滑倒而引发踩踏安全事故，截至目前已造成3人死亡，31人受伤入院(其中7人重伤)。据事后的调查，参加抢购并因此而死伤的，主要是下岗工人、低保家庭和退休人员，有的连小孩也参加了抢购，因此，在死伤者中，有的是一家老小几口人。重庆市统计局发布的数据显示，2007年1～10月全市居民消费价格(CPI)同比上涨了4.0%。其中食品价格上涨12.3%。统计局称，2007年10月，部分食用油的价格分别是：花生油102.13元/5升，同比上涨 27.98%；色拉油54.50元/5升，同比上涨41.56%；散装菜籽油5.20元/500克,同比上涨了60.99%，创下1992年重庆食用油价格放开以来的新高。有报道说，这次参加抢购的，有许多是商场周围友爱村和邻近的和睦村的居民，这两个村是原国营重庆无线电厂的职工住宅社区。这个成立于1929年的老厂到1998年濒临破产，职工陆续下岗，或被买断工龄脱离劳动关系。他们中有100户人家靠低保过日。而在死伤者中不少就是这个厂的失业下岗职工。
3.丈夫拒绝签字导致孕妇死亡事件。
2007年11月21日下午4点左右，怀孕41周的李丽云在生命垂危的状态下被丈夫肖志军送到北京某医院，由于丈夫拒绝在医院的剖腹产手术上面签字，在抢救了3个小时后，医生宣布孕妇抢救无效死亡。两条人命因为一个签字而消逝。这个事件引起人们的普遍关注。是人心的冷漠，贫穷的悲凉，制度的缺失，还是医患间的不信任使然？社会各方就此事展开了长时间的讨论。在制度的层面，究竟是医院的责任，还是拒绝签字的丈夫的责任，也许还有不同的看法，但超越这个层面，一个至关重要的因素是更为值得重视的，这就是贫困以及由贫困造成的选择的艰难。有人在评论中说，对于李丽云来说，生未必欢，死未必哀。如果顺利产下婴儿，她那艰难挣扎以求存的凄苦人生还是看不到尽头。这话也许是不无道理的。从表面看，她的丈夫肖志军拒绝签字的每一个理由都是牵强的，但这些理由如果与贫困联系在一起，又都似乎并非荒谬。
上述三个事件尽管是各自孤立的，但都和一个共同的背景有关，这就是在资源不断集中背景下底层生存状态的恶化。

1.重庆钉子户事件
2007年3月16日，《物权法》刚获得高票通过，一张“钉子户”的照片将人们的注意力吸引到了重庆。照片中，被拆迁户的房子在大坑中孤零零“站立”，重庆市民杨武和他的妻子吴苹则凭借法律和个人精明对阵开发商。经过15个昼夜的对抗，他们获得90万元营业损失补偿。这对夫妻被冠以“史上最牛钉子户”的称号。吴苹于12月20日参加了某网站2007“坛”论中国影响力盛典，该网站给她颁予的是“史上最‘高’楼奖”。有人说，吴苹夫妇可以说是在正确的时间、正确的地点，做了正确的事情。但事实证明，他们的成功很难复制。“最牛钉子户”的欢呼声余音未了，“更多钉子户倒在路上”(熊培云：“更多的‘钉子户’倒在路上”，http://www.nanfangdaily.com.cn/southnews/dd/dsb/A23/200712230179.asp。)。
2.厦门PX项目与民众参与
2007年夏天，厦门上百万市民都在转发同一条短信，号召大家共同行动，抵制有可能造成严重污染的PX化工项目。事件的背景是，位于厦门海沧台商投资区南部化工区内的海沧PX项目，总投资108亿元人民币，建设项目包括年产80万吨PX项目的主厂区、热电站及配套码头。项目原已于2006年11月开工建设，预计2008年建成投产。但该项目可能对附近地区造成严重污染。在群情酝酿的关口，厦门市政府宣布缓建PX项目。中国环境科学研究院于11月底完成“厦门市城市总体规划环境影响评价”专题报告，并从本月5日开始，在为期10天的“公众参与”阶段广泛听取厦门各界的意见、建议；厦门社会公众对此反应热烈，纷纷通过专线电话、电子邮件、信函等方式对环评报告提出许多意见和建议。12月13日，通过公开随机抽号方式产生的100名与会公众代表中的首批49位，参加《厦门市重点区域（海沧南部地区）功能定位与空间布局环境影响评价》座谈会。
3.陕西野生华南虎事件
2007年10月3日，陕西省镇坪县公布周正龙拍摄的华南虎照片，引来诸多质疑，12月19日国家林业局责令陕西林业厅重新鉴定照片真伪。自陕西华南虎照片公布，引来网上质疑，打虎派与挺虎派激争，媒体热烈参与之后，各大媒体评论及网议穷追猛打，不断推动事实真相的掘进。此时，虎照孰真孰假已不再是重心，人们开始反思真相背后的社会意义。“虎照”评论最为关注的是：事件引发了人们对诚信尤其是政府公信力的渴求。“虎照”评论还透视了日渐成长的民意力量。在事件过程中，民意在某种程度上起到了核心的主导作用，尤其是公众追究真相的强烈愿望，已远远超出“虎照”当事人的预料，让始作俑者骑虎难下。有人指出，民意不再是一种无形弥散的氛围和空气，而是一个能够对事件做出有力反应的有形存在。
4.网络民意与利益时代的表达权
在上述事件中，我们都可以注意到一个因素的作用，这就是网络以及其他的现代媒体和通讯工具。网络的作用始于2003年的“孙志刚案”和非典。当年4月25日，《南方都市报》首次披露了孙志刚惨死一个多月却无人过问的前前后后。文章当天被各大网站转载，立即引起了网民的强烈反响。当人民网在4月25 日中午以《谁为一个公民的非正常死亡负责》为题转载了《南方都市报》的报道后，几个小时内的跟帖就达到了上万条。当天，纪念孙志刚的网站建立，几天之内就有25万人次浏览。在媒体和部分法学界人士的推动下，仅仅事隔两个月，国务院在6月20日宣布废除实行20多年的“收容遣送制度”，同时公布惠及千百万人口的《城市生活无着者流浪乞讨人员救济管理办法》。就这样，一部旧法就此废止，一部新法就此催生，这其中网络民意可说是居功至伟。
这之后，“刘涌案”、“宝马撞人案”、 “SARS”、“钉子户”等一系列事件的发生，网络开始成为民意表达最便捷的场所。2007年3月16日，在一年一度的总理记者招待会上，国务院总理温家宝这样评价网络的作用：“这次‘两会’受到全国人民的广泛关注，单就互联网上向总理提问题的已经超过10万多条，点击的人数超过2600万人次。” 这已经是连续第二年，温总理在这个重要场合提到了网民的意见。2007年12月28日，四川省委书记刘奇葆向全川网民致以新年问候，他说，网络拉近我们的距离，网络增进彼此的友谊。我刚到四川工作不久，就看到了网友们给我的很多留言。这些留言，情真意浓，言辞恳切。这给我以启示，给我以责任，给我以动力。我一定不辜负大家的信任和期望，与四川8700万各族人民一道，共同推进四川跨越发展，实现富民强省全面小康的奋斗目标。广东省卫生厅副厅长廖新波自己开博客，而且在一年的时间里保持着几乎每天一篇的更新频率，坚持着与访问者的沟通。他说：“我这样干，绝不为出风头。我只是想通过博客，从另一侧面了解公众的心声，同时让公众知道政府在做和要做的事情。”就目前而言，尽管网络这种沟通和民意表达渠道还远非是制度化的，但作为一种新型的媒体形式，它开始在利益表达中发挥重要的作用。

The Doyen of Indology finally goes to Rest!

Brief Biography of Ji Xianlin

Ji Xianlin, a renowned paleographer (one who studies the writing and documents from the past), historian, and writer, was born in 1911 inQingping County (today's Linqing City) of East China's ShandongProvince.


Ji Xianlin studied in Sanhejie Primary School and the No.1 Middle School in Jinan City before entering Shandong University. In 1930, Ji was admitted to Tsinghua University as a major in Western literature.
In 1935, he went to Germany as an exchange student to study ancient languages such as Sanskrit, Pali, Tocharian, and so on, receiving his PhD degree in 1941.

Ji returned to China in 1946, and in the autumn of the same year, became a professor in Peking University under the recommendation of Chen Yanluo. Ji founded the Department of Eastern Languages soon after, acting as dean of the department and blazing a trail in the field of Eastern studies in China.

In 1956, Ji was elected commissioner of the Chinese Academy of Science's Department of Social Science.

Two years after the Culture Revolution (1966-1976), in 1978, he became vice president of Peking University and director of theChinese Academy of Science's Research Institute on South Asia.

He once served as chairman of various professional organizations, such as the Chinese Foreign Literature Association, the Chinese South Asian Association, and the Chinese Language Society. His Ji Xianlin Collection consists of 24 volumes, including articles on ancient Indian languages, Sino-Indian cultural relations, Buddhism, comparative and folk literature, essays, translations of literary works, and so on.




Ji Xianlin believes, "Cultural exchange is the main drive for humankind's progress. Only by learning from each other's strong points to make up for shortcomings can people constantly progress, the ultimate target of which is to achieve a kind of Great Harmony." Over the past ten years, Ji has actively participated in discussions on the cultural problems between the East and West, based on the same ideology.

According to him, human culture is divided into four parts: Chinese culture, Indian culture, Arabic-Islamic culture, and European-American culture, with the former three constituting the Eastern cultural system and the last the Western one.

Ji Xianlin has been crying for the rejuvenation of the Eastern nations and the rehabilitation of their respective cultures, claiming both the Eastern and Western cultures have experienced enormous ups and downs, which has caused a sensation among the Chinese society. Ji's opinion is of great significance in the understanding of history inChina, signalizing an active refute against the predominant "European Centralism" view that prevails in the country.

With his achievements in the history of Sino-Indian cultural relations, Buddhism history, Indian literature, and comparative literature, Ji Xianlin is acclaimed as a master of Eastern studies both at home and abroad.

Ji Xianlin's Personal Charm

Though a reputable professor of Peking University, Ji Xianlin seems to fall short of all his titles in the eyes of common people, as he is always dressed in a bleached khaki suit and a pair of cloth shoes, with an old leathery schoolbag in hand. He is always inconspicuous whenever he is in a crowd. As some people have said, Ji Xianlin, who is always modest and easily accessible, looks like an ordinary worker or an old farmer, without a bit of the air of a "big figure." However, it is this unassuming old man who has won widespread admiration and respect.


Whenever Ji Xianlin walks on the campus, such a thing often occurs: a bicycle stops suddenly in front of him and off jumps a student, who asks, "Are you Professor Ji Xianlin?" Following Ji's nod, the student usually says, "Mr. Ji, I just want to say 'I really admire you!'" Then, the student will bow to Ji Xianlin before turning around to ride away on his or her bicycle.

There are times when young people driving a car may get out the car just to bow to him, which is a sign of their admiration of him. It is the charm of Ji's personality that has won him enormous esteem.

A philosopher once said, "Greatness lies in commonness." Ji Xianlin personifies this truism. He is a common human being, and his greatness lies in one character, "真"（truthfulness）, which makes up his unique personality charm.

Ji Xianlin has always treated all kinds of people with sincerity. He is a caring person who loves his families, relatives, friends, teachers, and students dearly. He still remembers those illiterate farmers who played with him during his childhood and especially respects anybody who, like him, are kind and honest.

Ji Xianlin is also well known for telling the truth. As early as in 1986, he wrote an article titled "A Few Words for Hu Shi (a famous but very controversial scholar)" which shocked the literary circles. At that time, Hu Shi was seen as a "negative example," and no one dared to touch this "forbidden area."

Though some of his friends try to persuade him from doing such a risky thing, Ji Xianlin, thinking the evaluation of Hu Shi was not only a problem of personal appraisal, but also a big event of significant academic implications, felt it necessary to tell the truth about Hu Shi. In other words, Ji's view is that even if Hu Shi did make unforgivable mistakes, his contributions in modern Chinese literature should not be ignored. His article won the affirmation and support of a great many scholars, breaking a path for the re-evaluation of the nearly century-old development of modern Chinese literature.




Ji Xianlin is a firm and faithful patriot who show enormous love for the magnificent mountains and rivers, the long history, and rich culture of his motherland. He once said, "Even when I am burned down to ashes, my love for China will not change."

When he was studying in Tsinghua University, he joined the ranks in petitioning Chiang Kai-shek to fight against the Japanese invaders in Nanjing (of East China's Jiangsu Province), and went to the countryside to promote patriotism.

Even in the dark times during the fascist reign, Ji, with an empty stomach, still continued to work hard in subjects such as Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit. When he got an "A" in all his PhD subjects, Ji said, "I haven't disgraced my country; my scores are the only comfort that I can give to my motherland."

Soon after returning to China, Ji Xianlin began to work in PekingUniversity and since then has engaged himself in applying his patriotism into the teaching and research profession to pay back to his country, starting numerous new research topics and devoting himself to academic research, proudly finishing 40 articles and 13 academic papers within three years.

Setting his heart on serving the country with his academic achievements, Ji started to translate the world famous Indian epicRamayana in secret. After five years of strenuous work, he finally finished translating the 80,000-line epic into Chinese, erecting a monument in the history of China's translation and Sino-Indian cultural exchange.

Once the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) ended, Ji, feeling completely refreshed and revitalized, again committed himself to academic writing. During his later academic years, Ji published 11 academic books and over 200 papers, accomplishing brilliant achievements in more than ten academic fields, including Chinese cultural research, comparative literature, and Sanskrit.

Ji Xianlin's Philosophy

Preoccupied with research and writing, Ji has paid little attention to his health and daily life over the recent years. As a result, he is plagued with many health problems, and was once threatened with eyesight loss. In the summer of 2002, he was hospitalized for a complicated skin disease. However, throughout all these problems, he has remained focused on his writing.


On how to stay healthy, Ji believes in his "three nos": no waste of time, no choosing of food, no nagging. As he often says, the meaning of life lies in working, which requires a healthy body; in order to stay healthy, one needs to do exercise.

As a prolific language experts and translator, Ji has never slacked his efforts in his 70-year-long academic career. He gets up at 4:30，has breakfast at 5:00, and then begins to write. By the time the office workers begin their work, he has already finished a day's worth of academic research and writing. Once he was asked whether he feels sleepy when he gets up so early in the morning. His answer was yes, but that he often felt compelled to get up.

Apart from cherishing time, Ji's efficiency and speed at writing is also surprising. One of his famous essays - Forever Regret, was composed within several hours.
On August 6th, as Prof. Ji Xianlin, an outstanding scholar in academic circles, celebrated his 94th birthday, the Ji Xianlin Research Institute, launched by the China Confucius Foundation, was opened in Beijing, signifying the establishment of a special institution for the research on "The Studies of Ji Xianlin."

As a prominent academician, Ji Xianlin is highly praised both at home and abroad for his moral quality, his articles, and his scientific achievements as well as his good personality. The Ji Xianlin Research Institute is based inShandong University, with some famous scholars, such as Tang Yijie, Le Daiyun, and Liu Mengxi, as senior consultants. Any teacher or research personnel interested in the research on Ji Xianlin can be part-time researchers of the institute.

from China daily.

Welcome to the New Forbidden City: Peking University

Welcome to the New Forbidden City: Peking University
A university is supposed to have a clean and stress free environment where academic activities are supposed to be taking place round-the-clock. But Universities in China are emerging more of a business convention centre and less of academic activities. The top few campuses in Beijing are most hunted places by domestic companies as well as MNCs to conduct their product launch or HR training centre.
I wonder how Peking university campus is full of Mercedes-Benz and BMW and all the luxuries cars which are rare even on the 2nd ring road. In such a small campus which accommodates more than 30, 000 students, 6000 academic staff and near around 10,000 non-teaching staff where eight students share one room and need to be in queue for taking shower. Where is the place to accommodate CCTV, PHONEIX TV and different commercial ads and new product launching ceremonies?
The security guard will groom you for an hour if somehow you missed to carry your student identity card with you when you went out. The restaurants in the campus will not buy you any food if you are not carrying a special dinner-card issued by the authorities.
One day during the Olympics they could have really starved me if my friend was not there to help me. My card was running out of money and it was Friday evening. Now the next recharge was only possible on Tuesday as the during those days only few students were left in the campus and so the counter for recharging money was open only on Tuesday and Thursday for one hours. I requested them to take any amount of deposit from me and buy me some food because I cannot go out of the campus. During the Olympic days getting in and out of Beida (as popularly known in Chinese) was another torture to undergo at the hands of authorities most of whom used to be drunk in the night hours. Finally one of my Chinese friend helped me out by using his card to pay for me.
How moved I was, when I looked at all the students coming back from their home town to join the next session had to move their heavy briefcase on their shoulders. Beida would not allow any cab driver to drive into Beida and drop the new arriving students at their dormitories. Chinese as well as foreign students all had to carry their luggage by sharing among their friends. University could have arranged a common public vehicle to receive these new incoming fresh students who are not familiar with the surroundings. In the name of Olympics everyone contributed his own share. But the students at Beida were at the receiving end.
I see the campus charging heavy money to the visitors in the name of ensuring their security. The foreign student dormitories (called Shao Yuan) where we live have one of the worst kinds of arrangement. We cannot expect any Chinese guest in our place. You will have to deposit your everything and tell the guard a fix time within which you will move out; otherwise they will come and knock our doors. Now a days, if we expect a gust to come to Beida and meet us we must go in advance and receive them at some far distant East gate or West gate. For me and also to many of my friends, it’s an harassment to fix any appointment inside Beida. The insider part of the story is also horrible. The overall sanitation inside our dormitories is the worst measured form any standard. Now when summer is approaching, none of our room is equipped with some coolers or Air conditioners. When last year President Hu made an inspection tour of Beida, the universities authorities just did a fast white wash of our building and removed some broken windows of the Chinese student’s dormitories for a sound impression. Presidnet Hu interacted with some pre arranged selected students from some particular countries and left the campus as if everything is in right place.
Despite all these difficulties students of Beida are able to perform best inside and outside China. But, they deserve a better quality of life, in terms of better food, better sanitation and most important of all a suitable environment to conduct their research work.

…The writer of this article is a PhD candidate at the School of International Studies, Peking University.

阿诺米诺斯的选举

阿诺米诺斯的选举

2004年4月一个阳光明媚的清晨， 24岁的阿诺米诺斯（化名）早早起床，洗漱完毕，潦草的吃了几口饭之后，匆忙赶到了投票站，参加印度议会选举投票。如今又到印度5年一度的大选期，阿诺米诺斯已经博士毕业，在北京的一家咖啡馆悠闲地谈起了往事。

种姓制度影响选举

“知道我当时为什么要早早投票吗？”阿诺米诺斯故作神秘的笑笑，“我有个叔叔是候选人，我要花更多的时间帮他宣传，帮他拉票。”
阿诺米诺斯的家乡是比哈尔邦首府巴特那。用他的话说，这是一个并不富余的地区，不少人没有接受过教育，部族地区意识还根深蒂固。一些部族领袖被人当神一样崇拜，这为他们在政治上谋得利益创造了条件。有些雄心勃勃的领袖和士绅参加了2004年的议会选举，希望能进入新德里的政治圈，平步青云。阿诺米诺斯的家族也有这么一位在当地有权有势的人物，参加了2004年的议会选举。精明强干的阿诺米诺斯要为他的胜选出力。
“他是我的一个远房叔叔，生意做得很好，什么都干过，甚至贩毒。”阿诺米诺斯喝了一口咖啡，淡淡的说，好像过去的事情不值一提，“他已经是比哈尔邦地方议会的议员，但是为了家族的利益，我们经过策划将他推了上去，希望他能成为印度人民院（议会下院）545名议员之一。”
按照印度选举规则，人民院的545名议员要由全民普选产生，全国分成545个选区，每个选区产生一名候选人。而30多个地方行政机关在一个月左右的时间内，会被分成5批进行投票，选举委员会设定5个投票日，由各地方的选民按照规定日期前去投票。
今年还不满30岁的阿诺米诺斯有着印度人典型的卷发和迷人的笑容，在帅气的外表下却隐藏着一颗火热的心。他“经过风雨，见过世面”，有一种天不怕地不怕的闯劲儿。用他的话说，“我属于刹帝利，要为家族利益着想。” 阿诺米诺斯对自己的种姓制度十分自豪，在中国读完博士之后阿诺米诺斯选择了在中国的一所大学当了印地语教师。
刹帝利是印度四大种姓中的第二等级，按照印度教的传统，这一等级的人应该从事军人、教师等“光荣”职业。与刹帝利不同，第一等的婆罗门虽然最为高贵，但却“没钱”，更多的是从事精神教化方面的工作；吠舍和首陀罗是四大种姓的最末两等人，他们在政治上很少出头，吠舍的主体是商人，首陀罗则从事“贱民”的职业。
印度国大党通常被认为是婆罗门的代言人，而人民党则是刹帝利的代言人。阿诺米诺斯的叔叔就是人民党在比哈尔邦一个选区的候选人。
无论出于对叔叔的支持，还是对种姓制度的坚持，阿诺米诺斯在当年的选举中自然倾向于人民党。

一票多投如何解决？

在咖啡的袅袅热气中，阿诺米诺斯的脸显得模糊而氤氲。他接着回忆到，自己和姐姐为这个家族叔叔的竞选煞费苦心。大选时，阿诺米诺斯在印度最好的学府尼赫鲁大学读书，投票日之前特地和几个“哥们”赶回家乡参加投票，同时也为叔叔拉票。
“印度的投票站都设在学校，我早早赶到学校，但是还要排队20多分钟才能进去——因为投票是在机器上进行的，触摸式的投票方式，很多人没受过太好的教育，也没有提前学习，现场有一些人来教给他们，耽误了不少时间。”回忆5年前的投票排队，阿诺米诺斯还小小的抱怨了一下。但他又说，“这还算好的，有的地方排队要有一个小时呢。”投票后，阿诺米诺斯一溜烟的跑到其他选举点，为叔叔“宣传”去了。
其实何止排队费时，投票前的核对身份也占用了不少时间。
“印度人没有身份证，但是有选举投票证。只要年满18岁的合法选民，都可以由政府免费办理这个证件。”
这是一个类似胸卡的东西，上面有照片、姓名、性别、住址、种姓等等必要的信息，到投票站参加投票时，一定要携带这个，军人警察核实无误之后，才能进入投票。
谈到这里，阿诺米诺斯开怀大笑。“虽然有这个投票证，但是我姐姐还是一人投了很多张票，当然都为我的叔叔。”
原来，阿诺米诺斯的姐姐钻了印度教妇女穿纱丽的空子。按照印度传统，妇女的纱丽遮盖全身，只露出眼睛，除了自己的丈夫和亲近的人之外，其他人禁止随便掀开纱丽看女性的面容。阿诺米诺斯这个聪明的姐姐，在每次投票之后，都换不同的纱丽回来投票，就算有投票证，核查人员也很难将她纱丽下的容颜与照片相对照。
“但最后还是被人发现了。”阿诺米诺斯笑过之后，继续将故事的结尾徐徐道来——这是一个从另一个侧面折射印度大选，特别是边远地区选举的实例。
他的姐姐被人发现后，那个投票站的投票进程立刻中止，很多人不知道发生了什么，就看到一名女性在和核查人员在理论。
投票站的核查人员，除了印度选举委员会派出的人员之外，还有参选的各个政党的支持者，他们唯恐出现类似阿诺米诺斯姐姐“一票多投”的情况，利用竞选经费在各个投票站前协助核对投票人信息。早早投完票的阿诺米诺斯就去做类似工作——帮叔叔“核查”潜在的反对票。
大概是他的姐姐投票过多，虽然核查人员看不到她的容颜，但是姓名和住址或许被深深印在了心中，结果事情败露。
而阿诺米诺斯谈到这件事的时候，还是一脸无所谓的神情。“没事，我们和核查人员讲条件——她不是给我叔叔投了许多票吗？我们也可以让选择其他政党的投票人也多投几票，这就扯平了。”

民主就是自由选择

虽然阿诺米诺斯和家人为叔叔出力不少，结果这位代表人民党竞选的叔叔还是没能进入人民院。“原因有很多，或许是他的实力真的不够，要知道我们的选区有20个人竞争一个职位呢。或许有其他党派花钱贿赂了投票人。”
在选举时，特别是比较偏远的地区，政党候选人给投票人小恩小惠的情况并不少见，这招往往也比较见效。所以阿诺米诺斯解释，虽然印度法律对个人参选的门槛设置的很低，大约缴纳相当于1500块的人民币就可以报名参选，不过很少却有独立候选人进入议会。“就是因为这种竞选和宣传的成本，对普通人来说太高了，政党却可以化大笔钱这么做。”
阿诺米诺斯略微思考了一会儿，又说，其实如果叔叔不参选的话，他也会投给人民党。“国大党执政数十年了，应该换个新面孔。”
在阿诺米诺斯看来，一个政党执政5年-10年就够了。“我们是年轻人，喜欢新鲜事物，国大党主要是一些上年纪的人支持，这个党年轻人不喜欢，因为不民主。”
他举了一个国大党不民主的例子。当年人民党的总理人选在一年前左右就对外公布了的，而国大党则迟迟没有召开会议宣布谁是总理人选。“表面上看国大党很聪明，但是实际上它让人很失望——人民党提早公布人选可以让民众监督，更好地分析政策，而国大党显得太官僚，让人觉得没意思。”
阿诺米诺斯的父亲却不这么看，尽管弟弟参加人民党选举，但是这位父亲还是支持国大党。对此，阿诺米诺斯深表理解：“我父亲毕竟是老一代人，他认为是国大党几十年的执政让印度的政治地位和国际形象提高了，而人民党政府没有国大党的领导能力。”
虽然家人时不时在饭桌上为支持哪一党的候选人而磕磕绊绊，但在阿诺米诺斯看来，这就是民主，是整个选举进程的一部分。“虽然不完美，但这是民主，因为可以自由选择未来。”
一杯咖啡下肚的阿诺米诺斯，似乎嫌咖啡太苦，又多要了一份砂糖。
2004年的大选已如过眼云烟，转眼4月16日，2009年的印度议会选举又要上演了。阿诺米诺斯坦言，自己在今年大选期间99%的可能还会回家参加投票，或许他的叔叔还准备继续谋求进入新德里的政治圈。他笑着说：“我今年还是支持人民党”。


采写 张乐

INDIAN STRATEGIC APPROACH TOWARDS SINO-US CHILLING RELATIONSHIP

INDIAN STRATEGIC APPROACH TOWARDS SINO-US CHILLING RELATIONSHIP
(In the context of recent developments of US arms sales to Taiwan region and its impact on the cross-strait relations)

The recent developments of Indo-US relations
The last week of January and this first week of February had already set the agenda for the global political stage in 2010. No one would have predicted the there will be such a sudden “U” turn in the Sino-US relations, as US president Obama’s Nov. 2009 China visit was still fresh in our memory. But the news of US selling sophisticated weapons worth 6.4 billion USD to Taiwan indeed came as this winter’s most severe snowfall for the Beijing. The reaction from the Beijing was unprecedented. Military contacts have been canceled and sanctions are seriously considered for the US based companies involved in this phase of arms supply to Taiwan. This is the first time in the IR history that a developing country is threatening sanctions against a developed country. The diplomacy will take its own course and the ice could be breaking in the near future as the two countries share common interests in the global economy.

During the US president Obama’s visit to China in November 2009, and the joint declaration concluded after his meeting with President Hu Jintao, there was a major upheaval in the Indian strategic thinking community. The Indian concern was with regard to not mentioning their country in the issue with regard to maintain peace and stability in the South Asian region. There were several articles representing official and non-official views of New Delhi disappointments towards president Obama. Even some of the writers expressed their wishful desire to limit Obama’s Oval office to only current term and no second term for the man who is not taking India seriously. The perception of global order shifting to a G-2 empire was seriously discussed and debated.

But this perception gradually changed when the Indian president Dr. Singh visited US in Dec 2009 as the first official White House guest hosted by the Obamas in their rose garden which was decorated in the patterns of Indian marriage canopy. The limelight and media attention it attracted was unprecedented in the history of Indo-US relations. This might have marked a change of thinking back in New Delhi. But still many Indians were feeling uncomfortable for not getting enough credit as their Chinese counterpart in the post crisis economic order. Indian concerns are to be treated at par with Chinese at the global forums not only in economic realm but also in political and strategic spheres. Indian media and bureaucrats have always used the publicity stint of portraying China as a totalitarian communist government with unstable future, where as India being projected as the “world’s fastest growing free market economy.”
Are they allies?
It is true that India needs America, but is it equally true that America also needs India. If yes why and where. What India can do for America in the region or at the global level? The answer to this question is often lost in euphoria when India and the US are projected to the natural partners because of one being the world’s largest democracy (INDIA) and the other being the world’s oldest democracy. Indian ministers and intellectuals always start their speech with the stereotype statement of India being the World’s largest democracy with a vibrant youth population and rising middle class consumer market. Therefore they also link India to be a natural ally of the US (which has been always opposite in the real-politick sense). But this concept of natural ally originated long back since the time of President Kennedy. Thereafter the relationship was maligned under the shadow of cold war when India grouped the third world countries in Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) and vociferously criticized US intervention in Vietnam. When the cold war came to an end, India was indeed looking for a new strategic relationship with the US. But by this time US was preoccupied with its engagement with China and also Pakistan. When the George Bush launched its attack the so called “War on Terror” on Afghanistan after the 9/11 incident, Indian leadership under BJP (人民党) offered Americans to use its military base to launch attack on Afghanistan. But USA chose Pakistan as its ally on war on terror and thus the engagement with India was very limited in terms of some refueling of Americans war planes at the Indian airports.

It is also to be noted that Vajpayee had exploded bomb in 1998 which has created stir in West and US and its close allies including Japan has imposed several economic sanctions on the country. The Indians defense minister had written a letter to the then US president Bill Clinton citing China as no. one threat behind the reasons of the causing explosion, which was letter published by New York Times. Later, Clinton visited India and the relationship assumed to be normal when the most of the bilateral technological cooperation were revived. But there still remained many restrictions on the US transfer of Technology to India in the realm of some sensitive technology such as nuclear and space technology, which will be later dealt by the current Prime Minister Dr. Singh.

When did India-US come closer?
Indian leadership under Prime Minister Rao, started the famous economic reform in 1991 by liberalizing its stock market and other controls in order to get the nod of Washington for embracing a free market economy and letting US companies enjoy the benefits of growing Indian market. At the same time India also initiated the so called “look east policy” which tried to reclaim the Indian influence in the ASEAN region where Indians traditionally had enjoyed cultural influence. This gave Indians an opportunity to get closer to US interest in the region and find a common ground to establish a strategic relationship with the only Superpower. The common ground was to balance the rising influence of China in the ASEAN region. Japan and Singapore played an active role by bringing the Indians to be a part of the proposed “East Asian Community.”India recently concluded a FTA with the ASEAN region and at the same time it has bilateral FTAs with Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. This all factor led to a growing importance of Indo-US cooperation in the region and also at the international level. At the same time India is yet to finalize a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Act (CEPA) with Japan which has been negotiated for last three years. Now coming to Taiwan region, India is also planning to conclude an FTA which is going in several rounds of discussion and intensive negotiations.

Under the second term of Bush regime a historical agreement was signed between India and US which clearly gave a hint of US policy tilting towards bringing Indian in the mainstream of the International politics. The deal is refereed as “123” deal because it is under the first 1, 2, 3 provisions of US HYDE act to supply nuclear technology to other countries. Formally the deal has come to be known as “Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal”, as it is aimed at peaceful use of nuclear technology. In the past, India had first carried out one nuclear test in 1974 under the Prime minister ship of Ms. Indira Gandhi. That test was also carried out with the supply of plutonium from USA and Canada on the conditions of peaceful use of Nuclear energy. But in1980 the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) was established which India needed to get their approval, China being also a member of the NSG criticized the US attempt of changing the rule of the game by making an exception for India. After all the formalities the deal was finally passed by US Congress in the late 2008. In the words of President Bush, “this gave India a Passport to the big power club of the world.”


What’s the impact of Sino-US deteriorating relations on Indo-US relations?
Indian leadership realizes it again and again that economically India is not as important as China. Chinese economy is almost one and half times bigger than the Indian and also China is the largest buyer of US t-bonds and also the largest holder of foreign reserves (more than two trillion USD). Therefore Washington always attaches first and foremost importance to Beijing when it comes to trade policy making and global economic order. There is no doubt that in the current situation no bilateral relationship is as important as Sino-US or “Chimerica” (a term invented by historian, Niall Ferguson of the Harvard University). The so called G-2 is the reality of the current post-crisis global economic order where China has emerged as the savior the global along economy. It has been estimated that China will replace Japan in 2013 as the Second Largest economic power and finally will also replace USA by 2020 to become the World’s largest economic power. India is expected to surpass the US economy at least not anytime before 2040.
Despite all the above economic interdependence between China and US, it is also evident that China has emerged as the most obvious and imminent power to challenge the US supremacy or even Hegemony encompassing Asia-pacific as well as Middle East and African region. China has clearly and directly objected the US new sanctions on Iran and is in favor of using diplomatic method to sole the same issue. This has posed a serious strategic dilemma for the Americans and therefore they look at cashing over India’s close and traditional influence in the region. This implies that a step backward in Beijing-Washington relationship yields a step forward in New-Delhi Washington closeness. The loss of China is the gain of India and the vice-versa is also true. The two countries can hardly come on the same platform except at the recently concluded Copenhagen conference on climate change.
Sino-US relationship has been ascending and descending in the last three decades but overall it has been peaceful and stable except the 1999 attack on Chinese embassy in Belgrade and also the U-25 plane incident in the first year of Bush Presidency. The political bashing of anti Chinese senators was less evident during the US presidential election of 2008, except the house speaker Nancy Pelocy’s nostalgic attraction towards Dalia Lama. Overall, the Last 8 years of Sino-US relations has been categorized as one of the best era of their bilateral relationship. There has been several rounds of strategic dialogue at high levels between the leaders of the two countries encompass economic as well as military aspects. It has contributed in mutual understanding and confidence building between the government as well as people of the two great nations.
What went wrong recently leading to arms sales to Taiwan and Beijing threatening to sanctions can not to be blamed only on Washington, it has to be looked at from different angles and current domestic and international political context through which Obama administration is being challenged. Obama completed one year of his presidency and thus gave a State-of-The-Union address as the US constitution requires it. It was clear that he has not stood up to expectations of American people who believed that it will mark a great change and US will take a positive turn. As he has promised, he could not shut down the Guantanmao Bay prison, and neither withdrew the US army from Iraq. He has decided to send 30,000 more troops to the war in Afghanistan which is leading to nowhere in the recent future. Therefore, he has totally failed to the expectations of the international community of bringing an end to the non-ending war which his predecessor has launched.
On the domestic front, as the US statistics suggest, the unemployment ratio is already 10% and there is no hope of coming it down in the recent years. The US fiscal deficit has risen to 1.3 trillion which is highest in the US history and crossing the danger mark. The US manufacturing industry is not able to create new jobs, and services sector has been paralyzed due to failure of several banks and insurance companies. US economy is still far from recovering to the pre-crisis period. As per the International Relations theory these are the sufficient conditions for a leader of a particular country to divert the attention of its people to international issues. Therefore in my views after suppressing the Taiwan deal almost for a year, Obama administration fired a shot at Sino-US relations in order to distract the attention of domestic and international media form his failures at home and abroad. Now the question arises, why Sino-US relation became the target, it’s simple that no bilateral relationship is as sensitive and important as the G-2.

What is the official thinking in India?
Why Obama administration took this decision of enraging Beijing over the most sensitive and core issue of Sino-US relationship, and why now? Indians view can be represented in the following excerpts from an article published in the Indian express titled “cracking Chimerica”. It says: “Obama’s agenda for the bilateral relationship with Beijing was ambitious. Chinese cooperation was seen as vital to discouraging Iran and North Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons. On important multilateral initiatives, such as a breakthrough agreement on climate change and the resuscitation of the Doha Round of trade talks, Chinese cooperation was critical. Closer home, consultations with Beijing were required to gradually overturn the US’s enormous trade deficit and plot a way out of the global financial crisis. The potential returns on all of these fronts were large enough for Obama to expend considerable political capital to keep positive engagement alive. His administration’s rather public declaration to reduce its emphasis on Chinese human rights violations unsettled advocates at home. Obama earned the added ire of supporters by opting not to meet the Dalai Lama. And he was widely ridiculed for various conciliatory gestures made during his visit to Beijing in November. But it was also developments during that visit to Beijing and the subsequent UN climate summit at Copenhagen in December that suggest that the G-2 has now swiftly fallen out of favor. Despite the generous concessions offered Beijing, not one of Obama’s strategic objectives was met. There was no move to float the renminbi, and no discernible change in position on either Iran or North Korea. Cyber attacks have reportedly continued emanating from China, and dissidents have been jailed. At Copenhagen, China was seen as primarily responsible for obstructing a meaningful agreement. Cyber security and Internet freedom featured prominently in a major speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while Obama has also decided to meet with the Dalai Lama later this month.” This article is a typical Indian thinking in majority about the current Sino-US entanglements, but it does not mention the any diplomatic or economic gain for India out of these recent developments. India will act carefully and will calculate its loss and benefit before taking any strategic decisions in haste which may enrage her largest neighbor. Nevertheless India does feel a relief for some time when the media attention has deviated from Sino-Indian relations to the Sino-US relations. New Delhi is currently following the policy of wait and watch.

Washington is trying to bring India in its “Game plan” of pressurizing China on various issues. There has been kind of opinion from Washington based think tanks to engage India on the same front as Japan in the pacific to balance the rise of China. This view has been reflected in the testimony of various American Indians to the Senate committee on foreign policy making. Ashlley Tellis a Mumbai born Indian based at Carnegie endowments for Peace in Washington is a leading proponent of engaging India to counterbalance the rise of China. The international editor of Newsweek magazine, Fareed Zakaria also belongs to the same school of thought. Back in India, Prof. Brahma Chellany is a China basher on anything and everything and he is well read in the Western Media for his critical approach towards rise and threat of China theory. Some of the retired Ambassadors and diplomats have a moderate view towards China but they are very nostalgic of bringing India in close courtship of US strategic alliance. They neither see China as a threat nor as a reliable partner. Their approach is very clear that it is only the US which can checkmate the dragon. India on its own cannot take on China.
The international conditions are also in favor of India coming closer to USA, because of India’s rising influence in Afghanistan and Iran, and China’s limited interest in the same region. Indians in the United States have emerged as an important lobby group and no President can ignore their influence. As well known is the fact that Silicon Valley is dominated by 35% people of Indian origin, and the same is also true in many realm of the US services industry. India is the base of many outsourced business operation of US firms and the trend is not going to stop soon. The largest number of foreign students at the various US Universities also comes from India. Therefore it is natural that Indians enjoy an intellectual influence over US policy making. Some policy makers also argue that there is good communication channel between Indians and Americans compared to the Chinese and Their US counterparts. The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2010 has recognized ''a more influential role in global affairs'' for India including in the Indian Ocean region and beyond based on its commonalities with the US, while expressing Washington’s concern about the nature of China’s military development and decision-making processes.

What could be the future outlook?
It will be naïve to conceive that Obama’s foreign policy making will mark a watershed change from its predecessors. The Hawk and Dove share the same common office in the Oval office and therefore it is well in the interest of China to be ready from any maneuvers or challenges emanating directly or indirectly from the Washington Hawks. India could be a pawn in the US new emerging game in the Asia-Pacific region, but as the six decades of the Indian democracy tells us, that she will never chose to be the one dictated from Washington. India has at least maintained its territorial integrity and sovereign independence of foreign policy making. She will in no situation allow herself to be played at the hands of Washington. There are nostalgia for being grouped as US allies, but there are political and social groups seriously opposed to any close alignment with Washington nefarious plans for seeking global supremacy.
China should give India equal importance and recognize her achievements in terms of a peaceful dealmaker not only at the Copenhagen but at many international forums such as WTO, IMF, and UN. It may not be in direct interest of China supporting the India’s entry to UNSC as a permanent member, but it will never the less give China more global voice and legitimacy for the cause of developing countries in the new emerging world order. India will equally reciprocate to China in diplomatic as well security forums by sharing the common causes of representing the interests of the developing countries at international forums. India China can coexist by sharing much more information and making clear their future goals and intentions in the region and across the regions. The US will not be successful in playing either of one against the other. On certain issue such as global terrorism, India may act together with US, since it faces a common threat of radical Islamic terrorism emanating from the same region of the global terrorism epicenter. But India and China working together can make it possible that 21st century will go down in history as Chindia’s century.

Why India and China both should maintain a distance from NATO

US losing its war in the AfPak: Why India and China both should maintain a distance from NATO

At the recently concluded Munich Security conference, NATO’s chief Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen---for the first time recognized the importance of China and India in the AfPak region. Mr. Rasmussen expected the two countries to take interest in the Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak) region and behave like the so called “responsible stakeholder”. The head of NATO said Sunday its troubles in Afghanistan showed it was vital to boost ties with nations like China, India and Pakistan and transform the alliance into a global security hub. The response from the Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi was also come as a great surprise to many western commentators. It was evident at the scene that China is asserting her role as a great power, and US or any other country could no longer bully it. Washington was expecting greater Chinese support on a number of issues—not just Iran, but also Afghanistan/Pakistan, trade, climate change, trade talks, etc. The United States has pressed for tighter sanctions against Iran, something China has resisted. Under such an agreement, Iran would send low-enriched uranium to the West and receive higher-grade uranium in return for use in a reactor that would produce isotopes for medical use. As the latest report suggested Iran may be near Uranium deal.
The situation in the AfPak region is deteorating and US soldiers are dying everyday. It is evident even to a by stander of strategic affairs that America is losing the battle at the all fronts. The US & NATO coalition is now systematically undermining what's left of the Afghan state. Karazai is largely fiction. The US is now indiscriminatingly arming a wide variety of Civilian Militias in Afghanistan; Repeat of Iraq. The London conference on Afghanistan organized by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was aimed at finding an alternate solution to the AfPak issue. The Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai also stunned every one present at the London conference -- by using his speech to call for high level negotiations with the Taliban leadership that would result in permanent political reconciliation. Karzai has opened this door repeatedly before, and there have been several attempts to engage Taliban leaders seriously in talks. But activity in the last few months has been much more intense. Washington, Paris and Berlin made their best efforts to keep up appearances during the London Afghanistan conference here, but the gap between official rhetoric and reality could not have been wider. Participants called for reintegrating members of the Taliban who accept the Afghan constitution. The real game now is negotiating with the Taliban leadership in Quetta. Karzai and the Afghan government are trying to open some negotiations with the head of the Afghan Taliban Mullah Omar, as is the U.N., through special representative Kai Eide.

From the New Delhi’s perspective, the “AfPak” debate is all about Pakistan. India was the lone dissenter at last week's Afghanistan conference in London. As representatives from more than 60 countries convened at the historic Lancaster House, New Delhi's representative to the summit, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, emphasized to his British counterpart that it would be a monumental folly, at this juncture, to make a distinction "between a good Taliban and a bad Taliban" or to legitimize the former through reaching out. From India's perspective, because the Taliban was originally an extension of Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) and because it has been used by Islamabad to mount attacks against India, there can be no "good Taliban." The contours of the Afghanistan debate as it plays out in Washington, London, and Islamabad are well known. But India arguably has just as much at stake as the Western countries -- if not more. New Delhi is worried that legitimizing elements of the Taliban may increase India's vulnerability to terrorist attack. While the world discusses security strategies for Afghanistan, India focuses on how these proposals will impact its relationship with Pakistan. For New Delhi, the "AfPak" debate is really just about "Pak."
Indian foreign minister Mr. Krishna was also present in the London conference on Afghanistan gave some hints about restarting the composite dialogue at the foreign secretary level between India and Pakistan. After his return from the London conference, Govt. of India formally announced to get back to the negotiating table which was canceled after the terrorist strike on the Taj hotel and railway station in Mumbai on 26 Nov. 2008. The offer for foreign secretary-level talks comes as Union Home Minister P Chidambaram prepares to travel to Pakistan on February 26 to attend the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Interior Ministers' Conference, which will mark the first high-level visit from India since the November 2008 attack.
The people in India were stunned and expressed their surprise with the govt. sudden decision to restart the talk with Pakistan. No one expected at this juncture that a decision like this will be taken from the government side to initiate a new round of talk. India Pakistan already held 131 rounds of talks on the bilateral issues but there has been no substantive outcome or resolution. Columnists in Indian media wrote that the decision to renegotiate with Pakistani establishment was taken under Uncle Sam’s instructions. It is the US strategy to pressurize Pakistan for conceding more troops to the SWAT valley. Indians are not satisfied because Pakistan hardly took any step with regard to investigations into the 26/11 carnage. A tiny but vocal band of skeptics in India is already questioning the wisdom of New Delhi's alignment with the United States over the last ten years. Of course, it is unlikely that New Delhi would directly oppose U.S. policy in the region. India needs its alliance and commercial relations with the US not only for her economic development but also for the peace and security in the region. India is under pressure from US with regard to her Gas pipeline project with Iran.

The white house spokes person gave the statement those US Pak-India talks to stabilize region. But if we seriously examine this will find that talks are just aimed to pressurize Pakistan to increase the offensive in the Wazirstan region. Indian government is looking at all the variables in the Afghan conundrum. But the Indian offer to renegotiate with Pakistan is nothing but giving way to US tactics to bring Pak army on Afghan front. Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Kiyani will swiftly oblige. But while the Pakistan's game plan couldn't be very clearer, therefore the outcome is far from assured. Can India not effectively use its soft power & economic muscle to promote the idea in its own interest & that of others?

The answer is yes. Currently, New Delhi is the fifth-largest donor of civilian aid to Kabul. As NY times reported it recently, India has constructed the new parliament building, the Palace of Democracy; trained the country's parliamentarians; and donated aircraft to resuscitate Afghanistan's national airline, Ariana. Its workers are engaged in major infrastructure projects ranging from highways and electricity grids to dam projects, telecommunications, and the expansion of a TV network. The reason that Kabul has 24 hours of electricity a day is because of Indian engineers who have actually delivered the power supply. Besides, the wild popularity of Indian cinema and TV shows in Afghanistan means that India enjoys a soft-power edge over every other country currently engaged there. Unsurprisingly, in the most recent opinion poll, India emerged with the highest favorability rating of any country involved in Afghanistan: 74 percent. Although India is the only stable secular democracy in the region, is being actively prevented from helping in Afghanistan in order to appease the Pakistani regime. Washington is keenly aware of the benefits that New Delhi brings to Afghanistan. But so far it has been wary of openly embracing India as a partner. Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people.

But, Pakistan will never accept an India-friendly government in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s Army chief argues that India is not physically connected to Afghanistan. It does not have a porous border with Afghanistan. So India shouldn't worry about Afghanistan. The attack on Mumbai and Indian embassy in Kabul is a clear evidence of Pakistan unhappiness with India’s rising influence over Afghanistan. Washington's critics trace the origins of today's crisis to the United States' abrupt abandonment of Afghanistan in the late 1980s. The trouble with this version of history is that it skips over the 1990s. But contrary to what is now conventional wisdom in the West, the Taliban in its current incarnation is not a remnant of the Cold War. It is a creation of Pakistan. It was during the 1990s that the Taliban -- actively backed by Pakistan -- seized control of Kabul. Since then New Delhi has witnessed Afghanistan becoming a launching pad for anti-India terrorist attacks. At this rate, when it withdraws, Washington may leave nothing behind in Afghanistan but warring factions -- a mess not unlike the one that precipitated the Taliban's rise to power in the first place. India and Pakistan need to settle their dispute between themselves. Right now, the issue of Afghanistan is caught in the gears of conflict between the rivalry of India and Pakistan.

The United States has been pressuring Pakistan for several months to extend its counterinsurgency operations to North Waziristan, but Pakistan has not yielded on the ground that most of its forces are focused on defending its border with India. Despite preoccupation with fighting the war on terror, for Gen. Kayani and the institution he leads the major worry remains India. He said that he had made it clear to NATO commanders in Brussels that the Pakistani army would remain India-centric. Owing to the threat perception from India and the unresolved issues between the two nations, he highlighted Kashmir and the water dispute in this context. Kayani opposes any Indian role in the Afghanistan and believes that being Afghanistan neighbor, Pakistan has long-term goals and interests in that country. He will reiterate that “Afghanistan is my past present and future,” Pakistan has drawn a redline, stating that predominant Indian influence in Afghanistan is not acceptable. He confirmed that there have been more terrorist attacks in Pakistan during the past year than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Pakistan is paying for its role in the war in terror in terms of loss of life, infrastructure and to its fragile economy. He even asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her last year trip to Pakistan for the US to invest in a 1,000-megawatt power project. Ironically, the $1.5 billion a year earmarked under the Kerry Lugar Bill, $300 million will be spent on a monitoring mechanism alone, and in the end not much will be left for economic development with a visible impact.
India as always believes that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won without winning hearts and minds of the people. The military solution will lead to no man’s land. Beyond any doubt, India has moved closer to the US interest not by allying to it, but this year will cement India-United States defense ties like never before. But despite public & private assurances given us in past the US was unable to prevail on Pakistan to end the terror in Kashmir. In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, New Delhi even acceded to Washington's requests and took no action against Islamabad in order to facilitate the war in Afghanistan. But now that dynamic is changing. As control of Afghanistan is being gradually handed back to the Taliban, an increasingly alarmed New Delhi will start looking for ways to prevent trouble. Although deployment of troops has been categorically ruled out by Defense Minister A.K. Antony, pressure will probably mount on the government to reconsider that decision. New Delhi will actively work to resuscitate remnants of the Northern Alliance, India's longstanding allies against the Taliban. Most immediately, India will apply pressure on Pakistan, demanding that Islamabad act against the plotters of the Mumbai attacks. While New Delhi's recent offer to resume diplomatic talks with Pakistan is a positive sign, should another terrorist attack take place, India will not be as patient as it was last time.

My conclusion here is very clear. In the event of NATO forces retreating from the AfPak region a great chaos will emerge which will pose a threat to the peace and stability in the whole Asia and the world. But this should not become an excuse for India and China to send its troops to AfPak region and fight the Taliban. China and India should never fight America’s War. The War in AfPak is not the Global war on Terrorism. It’s clearly America’s vs. Bin laden. China and India should not fall in the trap of NATO’s grand design and should pay no heed to the request of contributing their troops to the region. The two countries have immensely contributed to the UN peace keeping forces in Sudan, Congo and Many other regions. The recent death of 8 Chinese peace keeping solders in Haiti earth quake was a very sad incident and heart touching story. So is the death of Indians embassy officials and engineers in Kabul. Our soldiers should not be sacrificed for American interest.