[Assam] India should start packing up to vacate Zangnan or face greater consequences than 1962. Assam needs her Emperor VaskorBormon’s diplomatic skills with her giant neighbour across the Himalayas.

Bartta Bistar barttabistar at googlemail.com
Thu May 10 00:16:40 PDT 2007

Government orders three probes in Arunachal Pradesh

Rajesh Sinha

Thursday, May 10, 2007  09:06 IST


NEW DELHI: Despite its initial reluctance to publicly accept the Chinese
incursion in Arunachal Paradesh, the Centre on Wednesday is learnt to have
asked the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Director General of Military
Operations (DGMO) and the Arunachal government to present confidential
reports on the status in the 'disputed territory'.

The reports are believed to have been submitted on Wednesday evening.
 DNA's report on Monday about the incursion raised a furore and the
government came under heavy criticism from the Opposition. Officially, the
government has not admitted any intrusion, but it has not denied it clearly

Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju said there was no incursion and
explained that the area in question is "disputed territory".

The state police had sent a report on the matter in 2005 after the Centre
asked for it.
The government's response evoked criticism not only from the Opposition but
also from two former foreign ministers. Former defence minister KC Pant was
baffled that the government had not come out with a strong denial. Former
external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha said "this was hardly the way to

There was no statement from the government in Parliament and no response
from the external affairs ministry, which should have followed when MPs
raised the issue."

The responses came from the 4 Corps commander, a field army officer, Defence
Secretary Shekhar Dutt, and Minister of State for Defence Raju. Neither Dutt
nor Raju denied Chinese presence in the area in question. However, Sinha
went on to add, "the army officials admit the Chinese presence in hushed
conversations, but for obvious reasons they will not accept it formally."

While Dutt's contention that it was a part of an understanding with the
Chinese to share some areas, the same was rejected by security experts and
Sinha. Raju's statement was seen as a watering down of India's stand so far
as the area in its control was concerned.

An analyst and former Indian Foreign Service officer Bhadra Kumar, however,
agreed with the term used by Raju. He said, "the two countries are having
talks to resolve a border dispute and the statement merely reflects this

He said a formal statement from the government on the matter would be a
serious matter and taken as stating its position. "It would have political
and diplomatic implications. Hence there is nothing wrong in the government
letting the response come from field officers or other officials," he said.

*Post your comment*<http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1095885#comments>

China alarms ringing

By John J. Tkacik
May 10, 2007

Fifteen years ago, the U.S. intelligence community judged that the People's
Liberation Army of China was more than 20 years behind the West. In January,
the PLA brought down a satellite with an ultra-sophisticated "kinetic kill
vehicle" weapon. Today, no one views China's nuclear or missile capabilities
as anything other than cutting-edge.
    In the last five years, China has brought 20 state-of-the-art,
super-quiet, diesel-electric submarines on line, increasing its fleet of
modern subs to 55. Now there is speculation the Chinese are developing
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane fuel cells that allow their subs to stay
submerged far longer and eliminate any detectable mechanical noise. This
would explain how a Chinese submarine was able to surprise the USS Kitty
Hawk battle group last October by popping up in its midst and immediately
disappearing without a trace. Apparently, the U.S. Navy can't track China's
newest submarines.
    U.S. intelligence predicted none of this. Last year, Assistant Defense
Secretary Peter Rodman admitted, "We are caught by surprise by the
appearance of new systems that suddenly appear fully developed." Former
Clinton administration defense expert Kurt Campbell has noted, "You look
back on those studies, and it's only been a decade, China has exceeded in
every area military modernization that even the far-off estimates of the
mid-1990s predicted."
    With the Soviet Union's collapse in 1992, America cut its defense budget
by more than 10 percent during the Clinton years while China boosted arms
spending by 10 percent to 20 percent every year since 1992.
    The Central Intelligence Agency calculates Beijing now spends
4.3percent of its gross domestic product on the military. China's
sectors will get about $430 billion -- in purchasing power parity terms --
this year.
    Even observers who remain generally complacent about China's military
build-up admit "alarm" at China's recent anti-satellite test and its
mischief in Darfur. But China's behavior toward Taiwan should sound the
alarm bells just as loudly.
    Yet, when the debate turns to Taiwan, some urge the U.S. to "chill." We
must not be too eager to defend Taiwan, they argue, because the "legitimacy"
of the mainland Communist Party would be "severely undermined" if the
international community questioned its claim to the island.
    But is supporting the Chinese "Communist Party's legitimacy" in
America's interests? Must we stand by while the world's largest dictatorship
bullies Asia's most vibrant democracy into a relationship Taiwan's people
have consistently rejected? Must Taiwan's democracy be stifled in the
interests of "peace" in the Asia Pacific region?
    Henry Kissinger once noted an international system for which peace is
the highest priority is "at the mercy of the most ruthless, since there [is]
a maximum incentive to mollify the most aggressive state and to accept its
demands, even when they [are] unreasonable." The inevitable result: "massive
instability and insecurity." Western democracies learned this lesson the
hard way in 1938 Munich and in 1990 Baghdad.
    Humoring threats from dictatorships invariably results in catastrophic
miscalculations. And Taiwan is not Beijing's only illicit territorial claim.

    Last November, the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi informed a surprised
Indian television audience that "the whole of what you call the state of
Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory." This February, the Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesman said "China will not accept any representations by Japan
on the premise of territorial claim" over the Senkaku Islands. No Chinese
live in Arunachal Pradesh, and Japan has administered the Senkakus for 112
    All Asia is watching to see if the U.S. is committed to President Bush's
vision of "the global expansion of democracy." If Washington won't stand up
for democracy in Taiwan, where would it? And how would Beijing know
Washington was serious?
    No responsible person wants war in the Taiwan Strait. But the best way
to avoid war, to keep our legal commitment to defend Taiwan's democracy and
to maintain Asia's stability is to demonstrate steadfast resolve against
Beijing's territorial demands.
    The United States may no longer be strong enough to defend freedom
beyond our shores. The "global expansion of democracy" may not be feasible
as we face a Chinese Superpower intent on legitimizing illiberal forces
lurking in the shadows of Asia's fragile new democracies. If so, Washington
should admit it, so our allies and friends can start making other plans for
their security.

    *John J. Tkacik is senior fellow in Asian studies at the Heritage
Foundation and was chief of China analysis in the State Department's Bureau
of Intelligence and Research from 1992-1994.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20070510/7dff3db4/attachment.htm>

More information about the Assam mailing list