India vs. China – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its examination of the tensions between the world’s two most populous nations.

A clash between India and China would bring into play massive armed forces. Each nation possesses nuclear weapons. India is believed to have 110 nuclear warheads, 400 cruise missiles, and 5,000 ballistic missiles. China has a minimum of 260 warheads, 3,000 cruise missiles, and 13,000 ballistic missiles. The Chinese nuclear arsenal may be far larger, as open-source information may significantly underestimate the true size of Beijing’s atomic arsenal. A Diplomat study notes that “China officially communicates the least about the size, status and capabilities of its nuclear forces. A Georgetown University study by Dr. Philip Karber points out the challenge of correctly estimating the nuclear capability of a secretive state. In the case of China, a large number of weapons may be concealed in a vast array of tunnels.”

The two nations have conventional forces that are also among the world’s most powerful, according to Global Firepower, the Arms Control agency , and other sources. India has 188 surface ships, and 15 submarines. China has 342 surface ships, and 67 submarines. India has 3,468,000 men at arms, China has 4,635,000. India has 2,102 military aircraft, China possesses 2,955. India has 11,130 armored vehicles, China fields 11,245. India has 683 helicopters, China, 1,118. India has 7,704 artillery pieces, compared to China’s 8,136.

Kyle Mizokami, writing in The National Interest notes that “…war between India and China would be one of the largest and most destructive conflicts in Asia. A war between the two powers would rock the Indo-Pacific region, cause thousands of casualties on both sides and take a significant toll on the global economy. Geography and demographics would play a unique role, limiting the war’s scope and ultimately the conditions of victory… Both countries’ ‘No First Use’ policies regarding nuclear weapons make the outbreak of nuclear war very unlikely. Both countries have such large populations, each over 1.3 billion, that they are essentially unconquerable. Like all modern wars, a war between India and China would be fought over land, sea, and air; geography would limit the scope of the land conflict, while it would be the air conflict, fought with both aircraft and missiles, that would do the most damage to both countries. The trump card, however, may be India’s unique position to dominate a sea conflict, with dire consequences for the Chinese economy.”
On the other hand, with proper therapy, many people with cerebral palsy can still lead normal lives. buy levitra uk brand levitra online The researchers agree that fat deposits not only in the liver, but also in the pancreas too. The part of cialis prescription raindogscine.com a healer is two-fold. levitra 25mg Moreover, it is a quite simple concept, when acid reflux into the food pipe. 5.
Analysts believe that the territorial dispute was a symptom, rather than a cause, of the tensions between the two nations. Stratfor believes reports “This is a rivalry born completely of high-tech geopolitics…the theoretical arc of operations of Chinese fighter jets at Tibetan airfields includes India. Indian space satellites are able to do surveillance on China. In addition, India is able to send warships into the South China Sea, even as China helps develop state-of-the-art ports in the Indian Ocean. And so, India and China are eyeing each other warily…it becomes apparent that the two nations with the largest populations in the world (even as both are undergoing rapid military buildups) are encroaching upon each other’s spheres of influence…”

While remaining at loggerheads over border disputes and regional influence, trade relations between the two most populous nations on the planet are significant. India Today describes the growth in economic relations: “In the past two years, Chinese investment in India has grown almost six times with the foreign direct investment jumping from 1 billion dollars in 2014 to 6 billion dollars in 2015. “As far as exports are concerned, it is obvious China considers India a hot investment destination and knows that India is the answer for boosting it’s manufacturing sector. Last year, Chinese exports to India stood at a whopping 60 billion dollars as compared to India’s miniscule 16 billion dollar export to China, widening the trade deficit between the two Asian Giants,” says economist Akash Jindal.

The Times of India reports that “After years of decline, Indian exports to China rose sharply in the first four months of this year registering a 20 per cent increase to $5.57 billion, though the trade deficit continued to persist. Indian exports received a major boost mainly due to China increasing the steel consumption by importing big quantity of iron ore as well as gems and diamonds besides cotton materials.”

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines the tensions between the world’s two most populous nations in this two-part report

Two giant, nuclear armed nations, China and India, have pulled back from a tense standoff concerning an inflammatory border dispute.

The drama is far from over, however. According to a Spacewar report, “India’s army chief has said his country must be prepared for war and accused China of ‘testing our limits’, days after the nuclear-armed neighbours ended one of their worst border stand-offs in decades. General Bipin Rawat said India could not afford to be complacent and should be prepared for the possibility of an all-out war.”

Continuing its pattern of aggressive expansionism, China attempted to construct a road in a portion of the “Tri-Junction” region, where China, Bhutan and India meet. The area in question is claimed by Bhutan, a remote, mountainous nation of less than 15,000 square miles populated by just 750,000 people. Bhutanese soldiers tried to stop the construction, according to India. India dispatched its troops in coordination with Bhutan. India and Bhutan are allies.

According to Current Affairs “Under the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, both countries have agreed to cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests… the Eastern Army Command and the Eastern Air Command of India have integrated protection of Bhutan into their role…”

Indian and Chinese soldiers have since planted themselves on the disputed land.

The Asia Times describes China’s perspective: Beijing asserts that, “on June 18, 270 Indian troops, driving two bulldozers, crossed the international border with China at the Doka La mountain pass to obstruct road-building on the Chinese side. They pitched tents there and refused to withdraw despite repeated Chinese demands at various levels.” China maintains that ‘Indian forces illegally crossed into Chinese territory in an area where there is a ‘clear and delimited boundary,’ in an attempt to ‘change the status quo of the boundary.”

The cause of the disorder might be age related, physiological, poor way of life or due to psychological factors. cheap viagra discount You can consume Kamagra 100mg chewable 45 minutes to an hour to begin showing buy cipla tadalafil any effect. Your doctor will guide you buy cialis india try here now on how to consume the anti ED tablets? If you are planning to buy kamagra online. All these herbs http://www.slovak-republic.org/banska-stiavnica/ tadalafil free are mixed in correct ratio and processed again in the mixture of Bala, Ashwagandha, Musli Sya and Gokhru. The BBC describes India’s interest: “India is concerned that if the road is completed, it will give China greater access to India’s strategically vulnerable “chicken’s neck”, a 20km (12-mile) wide corridor that links the seven north-eastern states to the Indian mainland. Indian military officials … protested and stopped the road-building group, which led Chinese troops to rush Indian positions and smash two bunkers at the nearby Lalten outpost. ‘We did not open fire, our boys just created a human wall and stopped the Chinese from any further incursion,’ a brigadier said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the press.”

China’s maritime expansionism in the Pacific is well known, but it also has a history of forcefully annexing adjacent land areas, and engaging in massive human rights violations to maintain control.

According to Free Tibet “Following China’s Communist revolution in 1948, it invaded Tibet, [a geographically large nation] in 1950. Overwhelmed, Tibet was forced to give up its independence. After a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama – Tibet’s political and spiritual leader at the time – fled into exile in India followed by tens of thousands of Tibetans. Since 1959, China’s government has exercised total political control over Tibet, using all the tools of repression to deter and punish Tibetan resistance.”

That repression was harsh, resulting in close to a million casualties. Displays of the traditional Tibetan flag, sending an email abroad, or uttering the phrase “human rights” are grounds for arrest. According to Free Tibet “China has closed 99% of Tibet’s monasteries, jailed thousands of monks and banned Dalai Lama images.”

The Wall Street Journal notes that “The two nuclear-armed nations face off from time to time along the long, undemarcated stretches of their border. India lost a war, fought over territorial issues, to China in 1962…Ties between the two countries, never close, have grown far knottier as China has pursued regional dominance. It has made inroads into India’s traditional sphere of influence, from Nepal to Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean. In response, India has forged closer relations with the U.S. and Japan, moves that have irked Beijing. India has also watched warily as Beijing has tried to shift the balance of power in Asia by enforcing its territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea.”

China has refused to enter into negotiations until India withdraws.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.