Xi Jinping wants obedient clients, not independent partners. Galwan had to be the place where it finally dawned on India that ties with China are only possible with military strength.
From Japan’s demands to Jaishankar’s comment on China, it is clear why India continues to choose ‘strategic autonomy’, the 21st-century version of ‘non-alignment’.
In a joint statement, US and Australia also said that China cannot assert maritime claims in the South China Sea based on the nine-dash line, historic rights, or entire island groups.
India has historically tried to balance ties among global powers but clashes with China laid bare potential risks of not having US more clearly behind it.
Many had written off the idea of building an Asia-Pacific coalition between Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. - a group informally known as the Quad.
This year, Jawan and The Kerala Story both won National Awards. The irony was impossible to miss. One critiqued the system, the other endorsed its narratives. The dichotomy says more about India’s cultural schizophrenia than any film review ever could.
New CPI series will take 2024 as base year, will provide more accurate measure of inflation, spending on digital services. Expected to enhance representation and reliability, says Saurabh Garg.
The agreement, signed after meeting between Rajnath and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on sidelines of ADMM-Plus in Kuala Lumpur, aims to deepen bilateral ties in the critical sector.
This world is being restructured and redrawn by one man, and what’s his power? It’s not his formidable military. It’s trade. With China, it turned on him.
What is the author trying to say, that the Quad is a non-starter; she is confusing the readers and making them believe that these processes are personality driven, they’re not, they’re institutions driven, the Quad whatever form it may take is a reality because of the aggressive behaviour of PRC and its duplicity, that’s not going to change so this is please realize that economy is not everything, National interest, territorial integrity both land and martime all matter,It may take time but it will form up
A very coherent argument made for the increase , in scale, depth and longevity, of trade ties of India, with the other 3 members of the Quad…afterall, what initiates the trust in a relationship is dependability, but what converts that trust, into loyalty and ensures a long term adherence to the underlying tenets of that relationship, is dependence.
Only inter-dependence, underwritten with common goals and values, can be useful as leverage.
What China has achieved in the larger global arena today, is dependence, but that is divorced from common goals or values, except in its relationship with Pakistan and North Korea……so China’s way of using leverage everywhere, is that of a bully, not that of a big brother.
Just three days ago, on August 31, there was a column in New York Times titled, “Trump’s Tariff’s? Coronavirus? China’s Exports Are Surging Anyway”.
And taking supply chains away from China? How long do you think it would take? Here an American manufacturer gives you some idea: “Robert Gwynne, a shoe manufacturing and exports specialist in Guangdong, said reviving competitiveness in the United States and elsewhere to compete with China would not be quick or easy. “To get it back,” he said, “you’re looking at 20 to 30 years, depending on what business you’re in.”” How would the world be looking like in 20 or 30 years? May be in that period of time China would be the only superpower in the world. the US having declined considerably!
You are probably missing the psychological aspects of the above argument…and as for Robert Gwynne , the shoe manufacturing specialist, he is right, but only in the very limited context of shoe manufacturing and even that only as an alarmist…..the 20 to 30 year timeframe that he postulates about, is based on the current state-of-affairs, assuming nothing about that changes.
The current-state-of-affairs, as we know, is in a constant state of flux which a shoe manufacturing specialist is hardly equipped to think coherently about. So that , can never be the dependable basis for projections on such time periods…..he might be right , but only for the next 5 to 7 year timeframe.
We should look to Quad initially just as a military (naval) logistic supporting club. We need such support (from US, Japan, Australia as also from Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar etc) in IOR and beyond. On our border with China, we need equipment from Russia, Israel, France and US. So Quad is just a part of support for us against China and not a formal alliance against China. That said, it is only India which can physically take on China due to its size of armed forces. The other countries need to support India.
Of course, Quad can bring trade and investment opportunities which must be explored fully. We must reduce our trade deficit with China in next few years while possibly increasing trade with it but in any case, we should not allow China to benefit more from our market than we derive benefit from its market. For this purpose, whatever needs to be done to reduce of cost of business (fundamental structural reforms etc) should be taken up immediately without bothering about FRBM targets and other usual non-sense. We have lost 4 decades against China but we need to catch up with it in the next one.
It is a matter of great satisfaction that Modi has changed our stance from molly cuddling China to a firm tit for tat action; just as he did it with Pakistan. We need to take this to its logical conclusion. China is a long term threat and we have to remain up to it all the times.
What is the author trying to say, that the Quad is a non-starter; she is confusing the readers and making them believe that these processes are personality driven, they’re not, they’re institutions driven, the Quad whatever form it may take is a reality because of the aggressive behaviour of PRC and its duplicity, that’s not going to change so this is please realize that economy is not everything, National interest, territorial integrity both land and martime all matter,It may take time but it will form up
A very coherent argument made for the increase , in scale, depth and longevity, of trade ties of India, with the other 3 members of the Quad…afterall, what initiates the trust in a relationship is dependability, but what converts that trust, into loyalty and ensures a long term adherence to the underlying tenets of that relationship, is dependence.
Only inter-dependence, underwritten with common goals and values, can be useful as leverage.
What China has achieved in the larger global arena today, is dependence, but that is divorced from common goals or values, except in its relationship with Pakistan and North Korea……so China’s way of using leverage everywhere, is that of a bully, not that of a big brother.
Just three days ago, on August 31, there was a column in New York Times titled, “Trump’s Tariff’s? Coronavirus? China’s Exports Are Surging Anyway”.
And taking supply chains away from China? How long do you think it would take? Here an American manufacturer gives you some idea: “Robert Gwynne, a shoe manufacturing and exports specialist in Guangdong, said reviving competitiveness in the United States and elsewhere to compete with China would not be quick or easy. “To get it back,” he said, “you’re looking at 20 to 30 years, depending on what business you’re in.”” How would the world be looking like in 20 or 30 years? May be in that period of time China would be the only superpower in the world. the US having declined considerably!
You are probably missing the psychological aspects of the above argument…and as for Robert Gwynne , the shoe manufacturing specialist, he is right, but only in the very limited context of shoe manufacturing and even that only as an alarmist…..the 20 to 30 year timeframe that he postulates about, is based on the current state-of-affairs, assuming nothing about that changes.
The current-state-of-affairs, as we know, is in a constant state of flux which a shoe manufacturing specialist is hardly equipped to think coherently about. So that , can never be the dependable basis for projections on such time periods…..he might be right , but only for the next 5 to 7 year timeframe.
We should look to Quad initially just as a military (naval) logistic supporting club. We need such support (from US, Japan, Australia as also from Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar etc) in IOR and beyond. On our border with China, we need equipment from Russia, Israel, France and US. So Quad is just a part of support for us against China and not a formal alliance against China. That said, it is only India which can physically take on China due to its size of armed forces. The other countries need to support India.
Of course, Quad can bring trade and investment opportunities which must be explored fully. We must reduce our trade deficit with China in next few years while possibly increasing trade with it but in any case, we should not allow China to benefit more from our market than we derive benefit from its market. For this purpose, whatever needs to be done to reduce of cost of business (fundamental structural reforms etc) should be taken up immediately without bothering about FRBM targets and other usual non-sense. We have lost 4 decades against China but we need to catch up with it in the next one.
It is a matter of great satisfaction that Modi has changed our stance from molly cuddling China to a firm tit for tat action; just as he did it with Pakistan. We need to take this to its logical conclusion. China is a long term threat and we have to remain up to it all the times.
Yes. A trade is an acceptance. Again any GDP growth less than 6% is internal trouble for China.