Thread: US cannot accept China military power: state media

Ray,

Instead of arguing until the cow comes home.

Here are two reviews I wrote recently for the good folks of the US Naval War College, they summarized my view.

You are welcome to your views.

I take it that others, who have commented, and maybe at variance to your views, too are entitled to their views.

I fail to understand why you require to use the phrase = "instead of arguing until the cow comes home." Forgive me, but there is a hint of frustration and is there a suggestion that I must take you to be an expert and I cannot hold a view contrary to what you espouse?

I wonder if I have even addressed you in any posts.

Earlier you also stated why do I use '!'. Again a hint of anger! Each person has his or her own style and that cannot be legislated or can it?

What is there to argue? I am expressing my views and that is all. Take it for what it is worth or state facts that you feel override my views.

I take it that I am entitled to have my own views.

You may have written reviews and good of you to do so. As far as I am concerned, suffice it to say I am qualified and equally recognised as those you mention, even if I don't flaunt my credentials since it is not material when you are on a forum, where a variety of views are given, some profound and some not.

"Those Chinese thank tanks are not commies of yester years' bamboo curtain -- take Dr. Wu Shicun, president of and a senior research fellow at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCS), John's Hopkin's school of advanced studies, Harvard's JFK school of government."

Fully concur. Hope I didn't imply otherwise.

Ray,

No need to be defensive. Of course, you are entitle to your views. But, the views expressed by professionals at US Naval War College have profound impact on actual policies.

"instead of arguing until the cow comes home."

Because we have gone down this path before, we just talk past each other, and we just keep typing and typing with ! and then !!, and finally !!!.

state facts that you feel override my views.

I am all about facts.... when others proclaimed that no one wants to live in China in this thread, I cited actual numbers of foreigners living in China. I don't believe in faith based finger pointing. Likewise, you can welcome to prove me wrong with facts.

Originally Posted by S-2

"Those Chinese thank tanks are not commies of yester years' bamboo curtain -- take Dr. Wu Shicun, president of and a senior research fellow at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCS), John's Hopkin's school of advanced studies, Harvard's JFK school of government."

Fully concur. Hope I didn't imply otherwise.

No, of course not. I guess what I am trying to say is that since they are educated in the "west", they understand views from outside, and thus make them less nationalistic than other hacks within the CHinese government. If they can be serve as medium of communication, the Sino-US relationships will be managed with greater ease

Originally Posted by xinhui

Ray,

No need to be defensive. Of course, you are entitle to your views. But, the views expressed by professionals at US Naval War College have profound impact on actual policies.

I am not being defensive and I wonder what makes you feel so. Politeness is not defensive an act.

What make you feel that the professionals at the US Naval War College are the last word? Or that one should quake in awe? And what makes you feel that I have no credentials to match? I prefer to remain here on equal footing as any other member and not boast that I have the credential to be some cats whisker on the prowl casting pearls of wisdom.

Because we have gone down this path before, we just talk past each other, and we just keep typing and typing with ! and then !!, and finally !!!.

What path have we gone before? I would with all due regards request you not to educate me on English.

I am not talking past you. I am just mentioning what I feel. I daresay, you are entitled to your views and it must be given due regards, but let me assure you that your views do not trouble me nor goad me to respond. Even simple ones like the jibe on my using '!'. Good sense prevailed on me and so I let it pass.

I am all about facts.... when other proclaims that no one wants to live in China in this thread, I cited actual numbers. I don't believe in faith based finger pointing. Likewise, you can welcome to prove me wrong with facts.

What numbers? I have not even joined any discussion on numbers. I have merely been posting on the Indian perspective to President Obama's Tour of Asia and its effects.

How am I concerned with what others write on whether people want to live in China or not?

I would be grateful if you indicate any post of mine that is dealing with whatever numbers you are talking about.

Lastly, I have come in peace and I am not going to be dragged into any controversy or a fight.

That is the last I shall respond on this issue.

Now... you are being personal. There is no need, really.

Breathe in folks.... play the ball.

Originally Posted by Ray

I am surprised to learn that so many people in China are obese.

The Chinese cooking (if you leave pork out) is most scientific and wholesome.

I eat it most of the week and I find it most beneficial!

Oh, and don't forget smoking/cancer

BBC NEWS | Health | China's cigarette threat

and HIV

http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm

This is from Carnegie Foundation. It is dated, but it indicates the thought process towards the Asia Pacitic Rim.

Obama to Asia: The United States Is Back

....Singapore’s elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew visited Washington and pointedly reminded him...need it to balance China. Lee cautioned the United States against over-commitment in Afghanistan, reminding his audience that the global center of gravity has shifted to Asia as a whole....



Obama to Asia: The United States Is Back - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The commentary includes

Japan
APEC, Singapore, and the ASEAN Summit
China
South Korea

One could analyse the progress the US has made towards its goal and how the US is not quite ready to abdicate her desire to be an infuence in the Asia Pacific Rim.

Here is a report filed on September 6th, 2010 titled - Global Military Agenda: U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China By: Rick Rozoff

The U.S. ended the four-day Invincible Spirit joint military exercise with South Korea on July 28, which consisted of 20 warships and submarines, 200 aircraft and 8,000 troops “in the sea, shore and the skies” [1] of South Korea and in the Sea of Japan near the coasts of North Korea and Russia.

On the same day the Taiwan News ran a feature entitled “China reports: the US means to set up another NATO in Asia,” which cited Chinese news media, scholars and analysts warning that “The US is establishing another ‘NATO’ in Asia to contain China as evidenced in the ongoing high-profile naval exercise with South Korea and a perceived intrusion in South China Sea affairs. [T]hese moves including explicit intervention in Asian affairs underline the US’s schemes to challenge China over its growing presence in this area….”..........

Chinese scholar Shih Yongming is paraphrased as asserting that “The US is capitalizing on the contradictions among East Asian countries to form a front against China,” in reference to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposing “to include the controversy over the issues of South China Sea into the mechanism of international laws and [speaking] explicitly about US stakes in the disputed sea’s areas,” [2] an allusion to her comments at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum in Hanoi on July 23.

Clinton’s signal that Washington would rally Southeast Asian nations engaged in disputes with China over claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea occurred at the end of a six-day tour of Asia – Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Korea and Vietnam – which followed by two weeks visits to Ukraine, Poland, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia on Russia’s western and southern flanks....

During her trips last month to nine nations from the Baltic Sea to the South China Sea, especially during her stays in Georgia and Vietnam, Clinton reiterated in no equivocal terms that the U.S. recognizes no “spheres of influence” by any other nation anywhere in the world, including ones by Russia and China on their borders and in their immediate neighborhoods [3], and that Washington reserves the exclusive right to intervene in regional conflicts around the world and to “internationalize” them when and how it sees fit.

Two days after Clinton left Vietnam the nearly 100,000-ton USS George Washington nuclear-powered supercarrier moved into the Sea of Japan for large-scale war games which also included the first deployment of U.S. F-22 Raptor fifth generation stealth warplanes to Korea. According to a local news source, “Two F-22s known as the best fighter aircraft in the world were shown combat-ready at Osan Air Base in Gyeonggi Province on [July 26].

More at:

Link

A major enunciation of the US policy towards the Asia-Pacific region came in one of Obama's speeches in Japan during his first swing in November, 2009. He said: "There must be no doubt. As America's first Pacific President, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world."

He described himself as the USA's first Pacific President because of his birth in Hawaii, his living in Indonesia as a boy and his mother spending nearly a decade working in the villages of Southeast Asia. He added: "The Pacific rim has helped shape my view of the world.".....

Link

and an analysis :

Chinese Concerns over North Korea & Vietnam

Link

It is but natural that the ascendancy of China in the Asia Pacific Rim in all its facets, is making its neighbours and the US uncomfortable.

While the neighbours can do very little about it, these links do indicate that the US is not ready to abdicate its responsibility to peace in the Asia - Pacific region.

I presume the new avatar of the US where it is pragmatically pursuing her strategic interest is in line with - Speak Softly but carry a BIG stick!

.Singapore’s elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew visited Washington and pointedly reminded him...need it to balance China. Lee cautioned the United States against over-commitment in Afghanistan, reminding his audience that the global center of gravity has shifted to Asia as a whole....

This has to be one of the most misquoted Lee statements, Lee is warning that Asian should be managed as a group, not by either China or US. Overall, he welcomes the rise of china and wishes to see a greater Chinese International role. Don't take my word for it, watch his entire 2009 interview. He also welcomes US's positive influence.

Lee Kuan Yew, Former Prime Minister of Singapore (this segment streams on the front page of
Charlie Rose - Lee Kuan Yew, Former Prime Minister of Singapore (this segment streams on the front page of
his interview with Charlie Rose, you can watch the entire show from the Link above.

Rick Rozoff's article was posted by an outlet from middle-of-no-where, hardly mainstream. Being said...................

U.S. recognizes no “spheres of influence” by any other nation anywhere in the world, including ones by Russia and China on their borders and in their immediate neighborhoods [3], and that Washington reserves the exclusive right to intervene in regional conflicts around the world and to “internationalize” them when and how it sees fit.

If that is the truth, Wow, who is the imperialist here? Again, reading from the NYT other mainstream press (economist, NYT,FT), Rozoff is putting words in Clinton's month. Clinton wants an international effort to resolve the South China Sea dispute that is correct and welcomed by many. However, she did not say she has the exclusive right to intervene.

US is not ready to abdicate its responsibility to peace in the Asia - Pacific region.

Only the world is a zero sum game, which most of the people do not believe so, especially in the realm of economic. Most folks are not ready to go to war, yet.

w.f.t Lee Kuan Yew's view -- Singapore supports the PLAN's mission to Gulf of Aden on a regular basis, that fact speaks volume. Every single PLA task force to that region include a fuel stop at Singapore.


http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/pac...-exchange.html


She also switched military support from the ROC to the PRC

From Jamestown
single - The Jamestown Foundation[tt_news]=36659&tx_ttnews[backPid]=25&cHash=010590e601

Singapore – In all of the speculation about future Chinese facilities in the Indian Ocean, Singapore has been largely ignored by pundits and military analysts. This is somewhat puzzling given Singapore’s friendly relations with Beijing and its strategic position in the Strait of Malacca, which Chinese strategists consider a critical gateway to the Indian Ocean. PLAN vessels have made four port calls to Changi Naval Base, including the May 2007 participation of a PLAN frigate in the multilateral exercise IMDEX-07 and a December 2009 visit by FFG-529 during its transit home from patrol duty in the Gulf of Aden (China Military Online, May 24, 2007; PRC Ministry of National Defense, December 8, 2009). Beijing also signed a defense agreement between China and Singapore in January 2008 that calls for increases in exchanges, educational opportunities and port calls and in July 2010, China’s defense minister pledged to further the development of military relations between China and Singapore (The Straits Times Online, January 8, 2008; Xinhua News Agency, July 14).

War On Extremism, can’t have a foreign policy shift without it.

It's official! The first Joint SAF (Singapore Armed Force) PLA counter-terrorism training exercise is code named “Cooperation 2009," marking a new level of Sino-Singoporean relations. The 9 day training exercise begins today in Guilin and lasts until June 26 (Here).

Singapore has strong military ties with the ROC (Republic of China). Since 1975, Singapore has been training troops in Taiwan under the code name of “Operation Starlight.” During its peak in the 1980s 15000 troops were trained annually. Singapore also maintains a strong military relationship with the US and allows availability of the Paya Lebar airbase and Sembawang Wharves. Singapore also plays a support role in the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Coincidentally, the government of Singapore is also a strong supporter of the PRC's (People’s Republic of China) “One China Policy” and actively promotes cross-strait diplomacy championed by “Minister Mentor” Lee Yuan Yew, which puts Singapore in an awkward position. When the PRC offered Hainan Island in 2001 as an alternative training site, Singapore turned it down and refused to make public comment, fearing it may complicate its delicate position. Singapore then turned down joint military exercises requested by the ROC (Here)

Until recently, Singapore continued this balancing act of keeping harmonious relations with the ROC and the US while strengthening it’s economic ties with the PRC. During Prime Minister Wen's November 2008 visit to Singapore, the construction of a second industrial park (an eco-city) in Tianjin was agreed upon. It will be modeled after the successful Suzhou Industrial Park. For a small island state of Singapore, having access to large industrial real estate is critical for future growth.

In 2004, Singapore’s stance on the “One China Policy” was questioned in public by the then ROC pro-independent president Lee Teng-hui after Singapore’s failure to support its UN bid. For many, this diplomatic spat was seen as a departure between Singapore and the ROC: a trend that has been developing for sometime as Singapore seeks to expend its economic and cultural ties with the PRC. “Operation Starlight” is slowly being scaled down and is now under low profile. Singaporean troops in ROC wear ROC Army uniforms and are permitted limited leave to prevent local interaction. The bulk of Singapore's military training is now being conducted in Australia’s Shoalwater Bay. In January 2008, Singapore signed the first Sino-Singapore defense pact to formalize existing armed forces exchanges while pledging to work together on humanitarian assistance (Here)

Two recent events have greatly reduced the difficulty of Singapore’s balancing act. First, the US focus on “fighting extremism” coupled with the current economic downturn brings the Sino-US relationship to its closest in recent memory (minor juxtaposition in South China Sea not withstanding). Second, the election of Ma Ying Jeou to the presidency of ROC brings back the traditional Chinese concept of “Make Money, Not War” resulting in an easing of cross-strait tension. These two events give Singapore an opportunity to enhance security cooperation with the PRC without upsetting the ROC. Surely, no one would object to nations banding together to fight extremism, right?

From Hindustan times, not a commie-ist news outlet, I assume.

The US wants to expand military cooperation with China to intensify collaboration in the areas of humanitarian exercises, disaster relief and counter piracy,

"Whether it's in training and exercising for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, counter piracy, there are variety of areas where actually our interests coincide and where I think we can explore working together as equal partners and develop the relationship further," Gates

Of course, if you don't have any thing nice to say, don't say it at all. However, Gates is using the same language as the US naval war college conference.


Would like to explore greater military coop with China: Gates
Press Trust Of India
Washington, January 07, 2011
First Published: 13:11 IST(7/1/2011)
Last Updated: 13:15 IST(7/1/2011)

Would like to explore greater military coop with China: Gates - Hindustan Times


The US wants to expand military cooperation with China to intensify collaboration in the areas of humanitarian exercises, disaster relief and counter piracy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, as he prepares to embark on a trip to the country to resume the suspended military
dialogue.

Gates is scheduled to leave for China on Saturday for his first official visit to the country since 2007. The visit will see the resumption of military dialogue between the two countries.

The dialogue was stopped last year by China after the US announced arms package to Taiwan and US President Barak Obama met the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama, despite strong protest by Beijing.

"I am eager to explore where we can further develop and deepen a dialogue on a number of issues of mutual concern and where we have -- and where we both have interests -- North Korea is an obvious example, but Iran, a number of other areas where we are engaged with the Chinese and where there are security issues involved," Gates told reporters at a Pentagon news conference.

Gates said expanding the dialogue is important, and so is to explore areas of partnership in military-to-military cooperation.

"Whether it's in training and exercising for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, counter piracy, there are variety of areas where actually our interests coincide and where I think we can explore working together as equal partners and develop the relationship further," Gates
said in response to a question.

Meanwhile, Michael Schiffer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, said at a forum hosted by the International Institute of Strategic Studies that the "on-again, off-again" relationship the United States has had with China is harmful and it is in both countries' interests to develop better and enduring military-to-military relations.

In building a durable framework for lasting relations, Schiffer said, Gates and his Chinese counterpart must show their nations' mutual respect and trust of each other, have reciprocity in areas such as military cooperation and trade, work for the countries' mutual interests, work to reduce security risks in Asia, and continue to talk even when there are disagreements.

Gates' goals for his meetings with Chinese officials include creating clear and open channels for dialogue and having greater transparency into each other's militaries, Schiffer said.

That the US is reasserting it role in the Asia Pacific is of no doubt. In fact, the Chinese People Daily feels so and the Mainland Chinese are the ones whose opinion is worth noting since they are the ones whose hegemonic aspirations are directly challenged by the US. Hence, the Chinese opinion is of import.

Therefore, the US 'return of focus' on the Asia Pacific is keenly observed by those nations which are directly involved. It is obvious that it does not raise that kind of interest in say, Angola, Ghana or Argentina or other nations.

The adjustments to U.S. foreign policy in the Asia Pacific region have paid off within less than two years. Clinton stressed in her speech that the United States' strategic engagement in Asia mainly relies on its alliances, emerging partnerships and cooperation with regional institutions, and the foundation for the engagement remains its bonds with its allies, namely Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and the Philippines.

It is worth noting that the United States has changed. It has begun actively participating in the region’s multilateral institutions and has launched certain regional cooperation initiatives. The United States excluded itself from the East Asia Summit in the past, but now plans to make its debut at the summit and build the summit into an influential regional forum on political and strategic issues. As for regional economic cooperation, the United States has also launched the Lower Mekong Initiative and is accelerating the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

Link

The neighbours are keenly observing the rightful reassertion of the US supremacy in the Asia Pacific region. It is a matter of concern since China has of late displayed aggressive intent to exercise her hegemonic quest in the neighbourhood. It has not paid off well as the neighbouring countries are alarmed. This requires no elaboration to anyone who has observed the reactions to the events.

UNITED STATES REASSERTS SUPREMACY IN TUSSLE WITH CHINA IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

In this tussle, China has played multiple cards ranging from confrontation to reconciliation with USA. What does stand out in this spectrum is China’s double timing the USA and its role as a “regional spoiler state”.

China, like its protégé Pakistan, has been double-timing the United States all along. Offering itself to be used by the United States as a quasi-strategic ally against the former Soviet Union in the late 1970s and 1980s it fed and fattened strategically on American largesse in return, namely substantial American foreign direct investments, unhindered exports to USA, and access to US high technology in the fields of the supercomputers, telemetry, satellites and missiles.

Concurrently, China was double-timing the United States and working at cross-purposes against American strategic interests in West Asia, South Asia, South-East Asia and East Asia......

China’s “spoiler state” image in East Asia gets reinforced by the following actions/or lack of action that are potentially strategically destabilizing for the region”

* Constant sabre-rattling and political and military coercion.
* Declaratory policies of use of force to annex Taiwan and its re-unification with China.
* China not restraining North Korea from military adventurism in East Asia,
* China’s building-up of North Korea's missile arsenal and IRBM capabilities.
* China’s directly, and indirectly through Pakistan, building up of North Korean nuclear weapons.
* China’s use of North Korea’s nuclear weapons as a pawn and leverage against the US attempts towards de-nuclearisation of North Korea.
* China not restraining North Korea from missile test-firings over Japan.
* China’s jingoism in the Spratly Islands disputes.
* China’s constant criticism of Japan on its war-times atrocities, conveniently forgetting China’s own record of the subjugation and military occupation of Tibet, and the genocide inflicted on this peaceful and spiritual nation.

United States pre-occupation post 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan had led many analysts to speculate that American power was receding and that its political predominance and military supremacy in East Asia and the Pacific was waning. It was also being believed that United States strategic focus would remain distracted to West Asia.

The United States to lay such speculations to rest and to reinforce that its primacy focus remains in East Asia and the Pacific, made its intentions clear by a number of recent re-assertive steps as follows:

* Ex SUMMER PULSE 2004.
* Additional Aircraft Carrier Strike Group to be permanently located in the Pacific.
* United States Troops Redeployment Plan to focus on East Asia.

Without naming China, each of the above developments leaves no doubt on strategic analysis that the United States retains the intentions and capabilities to ensure her predominance in East Asia and the Pacific......

In a further re-assertion of American military power in East Asia, plans are afoot to station an additional Carrier Strike Group in the region, in a “high state of readiness”.

United States defense planners are convinced that this additional positioning would have the following advantages:

* Deter conflict across the Taiwan Strait by China.
* Prevent North Korea from military adventurism in the region.
* China’s growing naval presence if not responded to would signal that American power in the region is receding. Hence this additional deployment.

United States Troops Redeployment Plan Aimed at China:

President Bush’s announcement of redeployment of 60,000-70,000 troops from Europe can be analysed as being aimed to cater for any “China threat” contingencies.

The White House Fact Sheet issued on the subject in relation to Asia, emphasises the following, quoted verbatim:

· “Asia: We will improve our ability to deter, dissuade and defeat challenges in Asia, through strengthened long range strike capabilities, stream lined and consolidated headquarters, and a network of access arrangements.

* The forward stationing of additional expeditionary US Marines capabilities in the Pacific will enable prompt and effective military action, both regionally and globally.
* Advanced strike assets will be stationed in the Western Pacific.
* In North East Asia we are working with our strongest allies to restructure our military presence and command structures while simultaneously improving capabilities in the region.”

In Asia the major military challenges to the United States in the coming decade will emerge only from China, and hence the above formulations in US policy, even if China is not named.

More at:
Link

The United States with its new steps to reassert forcefully its political predominance and military supremacy in East Asia and the Pacific seems to have put China on notice on the following counts:

· USA will not permit the rise of a regional hegemon in the region, intent on challenging American national security interests.

· USA will not permit forcible reunification of Taiwan by Chinese military action.

· USA will not tolerate military adventurism by North Korea either alone or at Chinese behest.

One wonders if it is wise to right off the US as a 'has been'.

It is worth realising that the US is not a spent force just because the economy is not robust and it is no longer showing the 'gung ho' assertiveness. In fact, the quiet US is a more active US and it is getting her strategic interest moving as per her wishes in this new avatar!

And the Chinese aggressiveness is actually helping the US to find friends which were earlier indifferent or even hostile.

India's shedding its passive servility, Japan exerting her sovereignty without qualms. South Korea calling North Korea's bluff etc are all indicators of the strategic scenario that is developing.

While it is good to get an inroad in foreign economies by buying bonds, it is also a double edged weapon or so the commentators of worth state.

What is interesting that all moves of the US resonates with the dictum - Speak softly, but CARRY A BIG STICK!

On the opinion of Lee Kuan Yew about Mission India, here is a review.

The author is a personal friend of the Minister Mentor and, with all humility, I would say I know him in his professional capacity as also as a senior from my School.

He has lived long years in Singapore and was a sounding board of many an Indian Prime Minister.

LOOKING EAST TO LOOK WEST: LEE KUAN YEW’S MISSION INDIA By Sunanda K. Datta-Ray,


Singapore is a little bit of the West in Asia. Anyone who has been there is unlikely to mistake it for a typical Asian city. It is not teeming with people and its public services are excellent. Of course, Singapore has size on its side and its makers have made the best use of it. Thus what was once dismissed as the Little Red Dot by a former Indonesian president is now one of the world’s busiest entrepôt and a clean and lovely city. What is even more noteworthy, as Datta-Ray points out in this book, it is of critical importance to India’s emergence as a major player in Asia.

India’s relationship with Singapore has never been easy despite the best efforts, according to Datta-Ray, of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister, who has, in 2005, assumed for himself the grand, if a trifle bizarre, title of Minister Mentor. The book opens, in fact, with the account of how immediately after Singapore’s independence in 1965, Lee, as prime minister, wrote to his Indian counterpart, Lal Bahadur Shastri, seeking military assistance. The appeal was ignored, even though Lee and Shastri had met three months earlier. This was the first of many refusals from the Indian side till P.V. Narasimha Rao became prime minister and pursued a Look East strategy. Lee, however, did not waver from his vision of India as an Asian player. Singapore has become important to India because of what the author describes as “Lee’s robust proselytization”.

What is inadequately analysed are the reasons for India’s reluctance to respond positively to Lee’s overtures. Datta-Ray suggests a few reasons but does not probe any of them in any depth. First comes that term, the Cold War — used often to explain a lot of developments between 1950 and 1990 — which prevented India and Singapore from coming together since the two countries belonged to two different sides of the great divide. Two related questions need to be asked in this context: one, why was it that despite the division Lee continued with his overtures and India, more often than not, demurred? Lee may have been “a man before his time” and driven by a vision or a “mission”, but why was India so unresponsive? This leads to the second question, which is, in fact, a counterfactual: if there had been no Cold War, would India and Singapore have come together in the 1950s and 1960s?

The other reasons that Datta-Ray gives are all given by people from the Singapore side. One that India was not willing to pursue domestic reforms so there could be no meaningful relationship with an economically dynamic Singapore. (This rather seriously undermines the Cold War argument.) Two, India was inward-looking and prickly. What may have been critical from the Indian point of view — and Datta-Ray only touches on this — was India’s own self-perception as a world power. It thought it didn’t need Lee’s vision.

The strength and weakness of Datta-Ray’s book are suggested by its subtitle. The book is about Lee and his mission and often in Lee’s own words. The real strength of the book is its fast-paced narrative in that limpid prose one has come to associate with the name Sunanda Datta-Ray. His choice of anecdote is enviable, and the manner in which he places them and the various important events give to the book a structure without imposing on it any kind of theoretical overtone. The real meat of the book lies in the hours and hours of interviews that Datta-Ray recorded. A later-day historian will have to match these with what is there in the archives.

Superior journalism is often the first draft of contemporary history. Datta-Ray’s book shows how valid this description is. It is a book that one can engage and argue with. This is, any day, preferable to what is often dished out as the Truth.

Link