Sino-US Relations, General Discussion.

[xinhui]

I must say that U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart politician with insight into China-US relations.:))

Not really, "Honk and Ben’s ATM" failed to meet exceptions and they can do a much better job "in-my-uneducated-opinion", but that is a completely different topic and should be reserved for a different thread.

[Officer of Engineers]

ps: My personal wish is for the two countries to build a strategic partership.

And this is where you show your age.

[xinhui]

If China, S Korea and Japan can work together on the Chiang Mai Initiative, again, I am talking about economic, not politic.




http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...dChannel=10341
By Yoko Nishikawa
WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - Japan, China and South Korea said on Friday they were considering expanding the size of currency swap arrangements between their countries, saying they should be prepared against risks of a further global slowdown.

South Korean won <KRW=> has been falling amid worries about the global recession's fallout on its export-driven economy, and Seoul is seen keen to boost a regional web of bilateral currency swap deals, called the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI).

"We shared the view that enhancement of collaboration among the three countries is crucial to effectively address the global financial crisis," the finance ministers from the three nations said in a joint statement after a meeting in Washington.

"We concurred to explore an increase in the size of bilateral currency swap agreements among the three countries," they added.

The ministers met following a dinner with other finance ministers from the Group of 20 advanced and emerging economies, who are in the U.S. capital to discuss steps to tamp down the global credit crisis.

South Korean officials have been telling their Japanese counterparts that the CMI should be expanded, but a senior Japanese finance ministry official downplayed speculation that Seoul would need to activate its swap deals under the CMI soon.

"South Korea's foreign reserves is falling but we have not reached a point where we need to supply dollars to them," the official told reporters.

Under the current CMI, Tokyo can provide U.S. dollars worth up to $10 billion and Japanese yen worth up $3 billion to South Korea, while Beijing can offer up to $4 billion worth of Chinese yuan to Seoul.

The idea of the CMI is that a country facing a short-term liquidity shortage can borrow reserves from partners in the network to absorb any heavy selling pressure on its currency without having to resort to a damaging devaluation, as some countries did in the 1997 financial crisis.

None of these credit lines has been tapped so far.

Finance ministers from Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member nations along with China, Japan and South Korea (ASEAN+3) have been seeking ways to strengthen the CMI and transform it into a more powerful multilateral scheme.

Japan's Shoichi Nakagawa, Korea's Kang Man-soo and Xie Xuren of China also said they wanted to speed up that process, calling it "the top priority".

The ministers agreed to exert their efforts further to reach a consensus on controversial elements of the planned multilateral scheme, such as its size, how to activate them and how to strengthen the surveillance of member nations' economies.

"We also call for a review on strengthening the regional surveillance mechanism for effective monitoring on the regional economy and financial markets," the statement said

The ministers said there would be a workshop on economic and financial stability on Nov. 26 in Tokyo to enhance dialogue and exchange views among senior officials from their finance ministries, central banks and financial supervisory agencies.

The three ministers also called for an early agreement on a general capital increase for the Asian Development Bank.

The Japanese official said the CMI and other issues discussed at the trilateral meeting on Friday would not be a topic at the summit meeting of G20 leaders on Saturday. Instead, leaders from the ASEAN+3 would further discuss how to enhance the regional framework at their meeting in December, he added.









SKorea, China, Japan to discuss expanding currency swap deal

1 day ago

SEOUL (AFP) — South Korea, China and Japan will hold talks this month on expanding a currency swap arrangement to bolster defences against the global financial crisis, a senior Seoul official said Tuesday.

Yonhap news agency said Seoul wants to increase the size of its existing currency swap deal with Beijing to up to 30 billion dollars.

The planned size of any expanded swap deal with Tokyo remains unknown.

"South Korean and Japanese finance ministers held talks in Washington on October 11," Kim Dong-Soo, vice finance minister, told journalists.

"And in-depth discussions took place between South Korean and Chinese finance ministers in Beijing on October 24, where they agreed to expand the bilateral currency swap deal," he said.

Details will be discussed when officials from the three countries meet in Tokyo around the end of this month. "I expect to see more concrete outlines after that," Kim said.

South Korea and China currently have an agreement to swap up to the equivalent of four billion dollars in each other's currency. A new deal would involve up to 30 billion dollars, Yonhap said.

The current arrangement with Japan is for swaps up to the equivalent of 13 billion dollars -- up to 10 billion in dollars and three billion in won and yen.

China's foreign exchange reserves, already the world's largest, topped 1.9 trillion dollars in September, up 33 percent from a year earlier.

South Korea's foreign reserves fell sharply in October as authorities intervened to prop up the won.

As of end-October they amounted to 212.3 billion dollars, down 27.40 billion from a month earlier but still the world's sixth largest.

The US Federal Reserve last week announced temporary swap lines of credit worth up to 30 billion dollars with South Korea, Brazil, Mexico and Singapore to help ease a credit squeeze.














SEOUL/TOKYO, Nov 12 (Reuters) - Finance ministers from South Korea, Japan and China plan to meet on Friday in Washington to discuss ways to jointly tackle the global financial crisis, officials in Seoul and Tokyo said on Wednesday.

The ministers may discuss expanding currency swap deals in a meeting ahead of a G20 crisis summit, a senior official at South Korea's Finance Ministry told Reuters.

"We have not set agendas for the meeting. But it should be difficult to remove the (currency swap lines) issue. That may be an agenda," said the official, asking not to be identified.

Japanese media reported earlier in the day the trilateral meeting would discuss the possibility of Japan and China expanding bilateral swap lines with South Korea at a time when the South Korean won <KRW=> has been tumbling due to the gloomy economic outlook.

On Friday, Japan's top government spokesman, Takeo Kawamura, told a news conference that the three ministers were likely to discuss how the three Asian countries could work together to tackle the crisis, but added he was not aware of any details.

As part of a regional network of bilateral currency swaps, called the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI), Japan can provide U.S. dollars worth up to $10 billion and Japanese yen worth up $3 billion to South Korea.

South Korea said last week it and China had agreed in principle to expand the existing currency swap agreement in order to better cope with the global financial crisis, with details to be finalised at a working-level officials' meeting in late November.

The idea of the CMI is that a country that finds itself in a short-term liquidity shortage can borrow reserves from partners in the network to absorb any heavy selling pressure on its currency without having to resort, as some countries did in 1997, to a damaging devaluation.

None of these credit lines has been tapped so far.

Finance ministers from Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member nations along with China, Japan and South Korea (ASEAN+3) have been seeking ways to strengthen the CMI and transform it into a more powerful multilateral scheme. (Reporting by Lee Shin-hyung in Seoul, Yoko Nishikawa in Tokyo, Writing by Cheon Jong-woo; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)

[RadioPatrol]

So, given the tenor of our times, do you think China and the US can build a strategic partnership? Plz share with us your views on this topic.

NOPE ... diametrically OPPOSED Politically .... even though we send millions back to China through IMPORTS .... and they do not want to kill the Goose Laying the Golden Egg ... IMHO China would be happy if we could not move beyond our borders militarily and they could expand their world domination

[xinhui]

From Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign's next article .




Beyond Iraq
A New U.S. Strategy for the Middle East
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200901...tml?mode=print

By Richard N. Haass and Martin Indyk

From Foreign Affairs , January/February 2009

Summary: To be successful in the Middle East, the Obama administration will need to move beyond Iraq, find ways to deal constructively with Iran, and forge a final-status Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Martin Indyk is Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. This essay is adapted from a CFR-Saban Center project drawing on the contributions of experts at both institutions and published as Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President.

The U.S. president should also spend capital trying to promote peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in particular Syria. Damascus is currently allied with Tehran, and an Israeli-Syrian deal would weaken Iran's regional influence, reduce external support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and improve the prospects for stability in Lebanon. On the Israeli-Palestinian front, there is an urgent need for a diplomatic effort to achieve a two-state solution while it is still feasible. Although divisions on both sides and the questionable ability of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to control any newly acquired territory make a sustainable peace agreement unlikely for the moment, these factors argue not for abandoning the issue but rather for devoting substantial time and effort now to creating the conditions that would help diplomacy succeed later. What all these initiatives have in common is a renewed emphasis on diplomacy as a tool of U.S. national security policy, since the United States can no longer achieve its objectives without the backing of its regional allies as well as China, Europe, and Russia.

Enlisting Russia's support for a common approach toward Iran would, in turn, make it easier to bring China on board. Beijing will not want to be left outside an international consensus. China's interest in the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf is growing alongside its energy requirements. Nevertheless, Beijing currently prefers to pursue its commercial interests with Iran rather than increase economic pressure on it. The challenge for the Obama administration will be to make Chinese leaders understand that a crisis with Iran will have adverse consequences for China's economy and, as a result, the country's political stability.

Home | Subscribe | Current Issue

Copyright 2002--2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All rights reserved.

[xinhui]

Also saw him talking about China on the Colbert Report, odd.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col.../richard-haass

[SlipKnot]

Eh!!!!

Don't let your debts go unpaid , the collection agency may come looking for payment.

[xinhui]

SlipKnot,

Can you tell me what is your take on the concept of interdependence?

Thanks

[zraver]

Can the US and China build strategic partnerships- yes we already have. But I think it will remain an issue based approach. I think there are simply to many factors to create anything like a general alliance.

factors against anything more than an issue based approach.

1- The US is the ally of Japan.

2- No need for allies, without the pressure of the USSR and with a P5 seat China does not need allies. Pakistan being more of a client. What can some one else offer China that is worth the surrender of sovereignty and freedom of action being a real ally entails?

3- bad experiences with being an ally. Everyone used China, and China remembers. From the West carving China up, to the end of WWII when the US abandoned the nationalists (the first time), and Korea where the Soviets spent rubles and Chinese blood. Being in a formal alliance or military agreement with other countries has not worked out well for China. I don't expect the Central Asian security group they set up with Russia and the Stans will really go anywhere.

4- China does not have a lot to offer as an ally. With extremely limited force projection capabilities, what can China offer outside of its immediate neighborhood?

Thus I think China will keep its freedom of action and only enter into specific issue oriented partnerships that serve Chinese interests. I also think that the CCP takes a very short term view on a lot of issues, so some areas that will long term benefit China, might be ignored and/or avoided because they conflict with current agendas. Examples of this include the environment, product piracy, currency manipulation, product quality etc. Some of these areas are no undergoing chance as the agendas change, but some of them are still back burner issues in China.

[xinhui]

They are accidental economic partners but Z, what about Taiwan?

[zraver]

They are accidental economic partners but Z, what about Taiwan?

in over my head here...

Taiwan is the unpainted corner of the Room China finds itself stuck in. Having tied CCP legitimacy to the Taiwan issue the only option is avoid war if it can be avoided and hope for a future lucky break. If the RoC decides it would rather be RoT and cuts its claims on China then the CCP has a big problem.

Long term, I don't think the PRC has all that much to offer RoC, so I am doubtful on peaceful re-unification. I am not a professional China watcher, but I think the CCP feels the same way. I think, for China and Taiwan to reunify, the CCP and KMT would have to go.

The thing is, as I see it if the CCP could get out of the Taiwan issue they would be better served. A free and neutral RoT would side with the PRC on a lot of issues, not be an American dagger aimed at China etc.

[pappu_10]

China and the US can work together on particular problems, like North Korea for example, but in general they are competitors on the international scene. In Africa for example, they have divergent interests concerning natural resources, oil in particular.

There can’t be any real friendship between superpower countries like US, China, Russia or even India. Even if US and China may think for some partnership right now for some benefits, the conflicts between US and China is certain on different political and defence issues.
Historic closeness and trust, built on time to time, between India and Russia will provide enough space for these two countries for their combined benefits in future.

[zraver]

There can’t be any real friendship between superpower countries like US, China, Russia or even India. Even if US and China may think for some partnership right now for some benefits, the conflicts between US and China is certain on different political and defence issues.

conflict does not preclude friendship.

Historic closeness and trust, built on time to time, between India and Russia will provide enough space for these two countries for their combined benefits in future.

Q- How do you say f&ck off in California? A- Trust me. Trust only goes so far, and recent Russian moves have burned a lot of that that trust. What goes farther than trust is natural affinity to something.

India and the US are natural partners. We've bled together, have representative governments, have a need to be wary of China, speak the same language, have at least some similar points in our history- former British colonial possession- turned powerful, have freedom of religion. Thanks to Americas immigration policies- Indians and Americans share families, friends, and employers. I doubt there are many Americans left who haven't bought gas from a Sikh, slept in an Inn owned by an Indian, or placed their lives or lifes information into the hands of Indians (Doctors and technicians). By doing this Americans show Indians that we are hard working, open and accepting (for the most part), curious- even if often ignorant, and tolerant/.

Now that both Governments seem to be maturing towards one another with India dropping the NAM and the US dropping the stupid Pakistani-centric view these natural cultural and economic affinities will win out.

[pappu_10]

conflict does not preclude friendship.

a level of friendship is found even between India and Pakistan also but neither china is going to become like Japan or Suoth Korea nor US is going to accept chinese dominance in the world. If we have a look, how china is buying oil and gas resource in africa and in middle east countries, its very similar to their past of occupying more and more lands.

how much power share US and China will stablish between each other and how much they will allow each other to gain more strengths is just time dependent.

Q- How do you say f&ck off in California? A- Trust me.

India and the US are natural partners. We've bled together, have representative governments, have a need to be wary of China, speak the same language, have at least some similar points in our history- former British colonial possession- turned powerful, have freedom of religion. Thanks to Americas immigration policies- Indians and Americans share families, friends, and employers. I doubt there are many Americans left who haven't bought gas from a Sikh, slept in an Inn owned by an Indian, or placed their lives or lifes information into the hands of Indians (Doctors and technicians). By doing this Americans show Indians that we are hard working, open and accepting (for the most part), curious- even if often ignorant, and tolerant/.

Now that both Governments seem to be maturing towards one another with India dropping the NAM and the US dropping the stupid Pakistani-centric view these natural cultural and economic affinities will win out.

Indian and American share similar lifestyle and interest and are very friendly with each other including blood relationship also but there was a reason why Obama was standing in a bullet proof mirror when he first came in front of public as a president. And even if India and US have natural friendship, there was a reason why nuclear deal took place after 34 years, when india did its first nuclear test in 1974 and finally joined SU group.

The reasons still exist. Even if Indian and American have much in common, India isitself a superpower country. India is not going to become like south korea or japan. Better friendship between India and US, the two largest democratic countries, is a need of Time but it will maintain a distance.

[xinhui]

Z,

Your point "I doubt there are many Americans left who haven't bought gas from a Sikh, slept in an Inn owned by an Indian"

But there is a huge Palestinian population in the US, but they don't seem to change the policy of the government toward the middle east.



anyways, back to topic, I don't see the world as zero sum, a warm US-India relations might not be viewed in a poorly in China, as China is India's number one trade partner and war is bad for business. Also, a stable western flank might allow China to focus on on the "eastern flank"



Here is the daily time article.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-12-2008_pg3_1


Editorial: Cleaning up the act with conviction

The government of Pakistan, together with the leaders of the armed forces, and the main opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), have done Pakistan a great service by heeding the voice of the international community in general, and China in particular, by taking action against the organisations banned on Wednesday by the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council: Jama’at-ud Dawa and Jaish-e Muhammad.

Most Pakistanis will be shocked at the outreach of Jama’at-ud Dawa in the country after its “education” and charity institutions were raided on Thursday in compliance with the UN Security Council ban. In fact, action had begun before Thursday after Pakistan became aware of the extent to which Dawa-Lashkar was possibly involved in the Mumbai attacks.

In Punjab alone, 18 cities have the presence of an outfit that the UN Security Council thinks is involved in terrorism abroad. Outside Punjab, the network is also highly developed from Karachi to Peshawar and Azad Kashmir. In some cities, the Dawa “system” has chains of kindergarten schools which the government must now consider taking over and running as its own system to prevent the children from being deprived of education. Dawa had its own “universities” too, but public knowledge about them is scanty.

It is also not known widely in Pakistan that Jama’at-ud Dawa was the target of new restrictions at the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council but was saved by a Chinese veto every time the matter was brought up by affected states. It was accused of being involved in terrorism in the UK, and there was a scandal in 2005 of large sums of money being funnelled as charity funds during the earthquake in Pakistan, which some suspected had been actually remitted to Dawa.

India had its plaint over the Red Fort attack in 2000, and Dawa was noted for the conspicuous act of leading the funeral prayer in absentia in Lahore for Al Qaeda’s sectarian terrorist Zarqawi after his death in Iraq. After that, Dawa warriors were noticed in Iraq too. Of course Dawa claimed that it was a new organisation and had nothing to do with Lashkar-e Tayba that was allegedly carrying out terrorist acts, and was based in Indian-administered Kashmir. The UK had to bring in new laws to prevent charity contributions of up to 3 million pounds annually to the Dawa-Lashkar recipients in Pakistan.

Dawa moved from Muridke — after it became “vulnerable” — to Lake Road, Lahore, where it significantly named its headquarters as Masjid Qadisiya, after the historic location where the Arabs had defeated the Iranian king in antiquity, a very sectarian reference in our times. But all this was ignored and allowed to pass under the radar of intelligence. People who got into trouble with Dawa were visited with “official” wrath, and soon everyone accepted the anomaly of Dawa as a part of life.

It is the Chinese “message” that has changed our mind. The Chinese did not veto the banning of Dawa on Wednesday, and they had reportedly told Islamabad as much beforehand, compelling our permanent representative at the UN to assert that Pakistan would accept the ban if it came. One subliminal message was also given to Chief Minister Punjab, Mr Shehbaz Sharif, during his recent visit to China, and the message was that Pakistan had to seek peace with India or face change of policy in Beijing. Once again, it is our friend China whose advice has been well taken; above all, thankfully, by the media, while discussing the Dawa ban on the night of December 11.

There are other things to take care of too. Jaish-e Muhammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar has been placed under house arrest in Bahawalpur. But reports from Bahawalpur for the past five years had consistently said that he was not there but was occasionally seen in Islamabad. That is also true of the chief of Harkatul Mujahideen, Fazlur Rehman Khaleel, who was taken out of his “safe house” and displayed to the media during the Lal Masjid crisis in 2007. But these are patently Al Qaeda hangers-on who can bring more heat on Pakistan in the future.

Pakistan will need to cooperate with the international community in the coming days. The trend among our jihadi outfits so far is not to surrender to bans but to make a beeline for the Kohat Road pockets of terrorism and join the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine to kill our soldiers. Our army discovered all the banned jihadis when it confronted the militants at Darra Adam Khel. If Jaish was let off the hook after it attacked General Musharraf in 2004, it should now be confronted for providing the bulk of suicide-bombers to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Last but not least, Pakistan should act not because an “unfair international system” compels it to act; it should act out of conviction. Some commentators are already suggesting the kind of double-faced strategy adopted by Musharraf. It has been exposed as self-damaging and should not be embraced again. *





http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/20...tan-and-india/
December 13th, 2008
China, Pakistan and India

Posted by: Myra MacDonald



According to Pakistani newspaper the Daily Times, Pakistan’s decision to crack down on the Jammat-ud-Dawa, the charity linked to the Laskhar-e-Taiba, came as the result of pressure from China. Jammat-ud-Dawa was blacklisted by a UN Security Council committee this week.

The Daily Times noted that earlier attempts to target the Jamaat-ud-Dawa at the Security Council had been vetoed by China. “It is the Chinese “message” that has changed our mind. The Chinese did not veto the banning of Dawa on Wednesday, and they had reportedly told Islamabad as much beforehand, compelling our permanent representative at the UN to assert that Pakistan would accept the ban if it came,” the newspaper said. “One subliminal message was also given to Chief Minister Punjab, Mr Shehbaz Sharif, during his recent visit to China, and the message was that Pakistan had to seek peace with India or face change of policy in Beijing. Once again, it is our friend China whose advice has been well taken…”

This is intriguing, all the more so given how much attention has has been focused on what the United States has been doing to lean on Pakistan to curb militant groups blamed by India for the attacks on Mumbai. So what has been going on? Has China, with its growing economic power, become a pivotal player in global diplomacy even as the United States continues to hog the limelight?

We’ve always known that China has had a major role in South Asia. But in the past it was a seen as the ultimate all-weather ally of Pakistan, to be used if necessary against India, with which it has vied for influence in Asia and against which it fought a border war in 1962. Is this call for peace an example of it taking on a U.S.-style role of regional policeman, as I discussed in a post back in June about India, Pakistan and China?

The Times of India quotes Shashi Tharoor as saying that there was a feeling in China that its opposition to India on the issue of terrorism would “no longer be compatible with its being seen as a responsible player in the system”.

The Asia Times Online, in a report datelined Bangalore, put China’s decision to support the crackdown on Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) in a more pragmatic context. “An official in India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, said that in the wake of the international outrage triggered by the Mumbai attacks, the Pakistan government realized that whether or not the UN body designated JuD as terrorist, it would be compelled by the US to act against the group,” it said. “In the circumstances, it felt it would be better to be seen to be acting under UN orders rather than pressure from India or the US. Hence the Pakistan-China decision to go along with the other Security Council members this time,” it quoted the MEA official as saying.

Personally, I don’t really understand what is going on in the India-Pakistan-China equation (largely because I don’t know much about China). So instead, I’ve drawn up a list of questions on which I’d appreciate comments and which I aim to address in subsequent posts:

1) Has China decided that given its growing stake in the global economy, it has a greater interest in encouraging peace between India and Pakistan?

2) Has it become as important, or more important, a player in South Asia than the United States?

3) If it is aiming now to become an even-handed arbiter between India and Pakistan, why are there still so many problems along the Indian-Chinese border?

4) Why, if China was such a reliable friend of Pakistan, did it refuse to bail out its economy and leave the civilian government there with no option but to turn to the IMF?

5) What do we make of the fact that Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani made his first visit to China, while President Asif Ali Zardari went to the United States?

6) What is the long-term gameplan? And what does this mean for South Asia and the rest of the world?

Are there other questions out there that need to be asked?