China's aggressive policy towards South East Asia

This issue becomes imp primarily coz of the outcomes of ASEAN nd EAS(East Asia Summit) Summits in Oct 2013 and absence of President Obama in these summits and also coz of softness shown by China lately towards ASEAN countries over South China Sea Dispute.

                           China claim almost the entire oil rich and gas rich South China Sea that has overlapping with the claims of Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei. And China is aggressively perusing its claim primarily because  of the increase in economic power and consequently military power. Objective is to use this power to settle maritime issues in its favour. Besides China is the largest trade partner of ASEAN. This also increases dependence of ASEAN on China. However  the geo political dynamics in the region have changed lately primarily after entry of US.

                          Until 2010, the ASEAN meeting were waste of time for USA but in 2010  H.Clinton injected America into the South China Sea tensions btw China and its South East Asian neighbours. And since then USA is using the ASEAN and EAS to influence the power balance in the region.Also since 2010, USA has proactively strengthened its engagement  militarily as well as economically with ASEAN nations. It outlined plans to shift its forces from Atlantic and the Middle East to the Pacific facing China. USA has also normalized its relations with Myanmar and urged India to beef up its Look East Policy.

  

                                         China found itself isolated on South China Sea dispute coz of USA’s activism and has repeatedly since 2010 in subsequent summits voiced its displeasure in discussing South China Sea dispute on multilateral platforms. China wants to deal with it individual claimants and thus giving itself a much stronger position in any negotiations.These developments made ASEAN use US to balance the power dynamics in the region and thus put pressure on China.

                       The US Security of State John Kerry has restated the position took by H. Clinton. In EAS held in Brunei in Oct 2013 USA and Japan pressurized China to discuss the dispute on a multilateral platform and urged that it is a matter of concern for the whole region. However, China was reluctant to address the issue despite growing international pressure.The US crisis made President Obama call off his visit to South East Asia and the two regional summits(ASEAN and EAS); Kerry seemed more focused on Middle East; and recent US defence budget cuts have raised questions on the sustainability of its pivot to Asia. Seizing the opportunity, President Xi on his visits to the claimants Nations strengthened economic ties and pledged to find solutions to the dispute through negotiations and consultations.

      

                                               Premier Li praised the “Golden Decade” of relations between China and ASEAN, and also promoted the Chinese government’s new so-called "2+7 Cooperation Framework," which is focused on economic development, notably the negotiations to expand the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area. Chinese Head's visits to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Burei and Vietnam before and after these summits reinforces the fact that China is going a bit soft and focusing more on economic ties to lessen the US influence over ASEAN Nations.

                     On the face of it China might have softened its aggressive policy but it is just a diplomatic rhetoric. Claims in South China Sea by both nations are like fire and water. China has long –term expansion goal and it will not give up its claim on South China Sea unless it is weekend. China is willing to wait for an opportunity and it will hit back strongly at the South East Asian nations. China has temporarily put off its aggressive policy and it should not be considered by ASEAN Nations as goodwill gesture.

Does India need Small States !!!!

Well guys here i am back with a topic which is hot fav coz 29th State of India Telangana will become reality in coming months. Well ofcourse that is what Congress has promised....Ya ya i know it will be a reality provided Mr. Boss doesn't come out say it is a piece of shit...tear it. Anyway i am not gono talk about Telangana.....whether it is legistimate or not or the political mileage behind it (May be sum other day ;-)).
                                           What i am interested is whether Small States are desirable or NOT and what should be the basis of formation of a New State?????

Since ancient times, be it the Kings or the Britishers all divided the country into smaller units to have a better administration. Also our Constitution talks about India ie. Bharat is " Union of States"(Article 1) and Article3 gives power to Parliament to create New States.So even our Constitutional makers believed that in future if required for administrative convenience and for the benefits of people new states may be carved out of the existing States.

                            In 2000, three states were created ie. Chhasttisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. Growth of these states have increased comparatively but new issues have also emerged due to division of water, oil and other mineral resources. Also Telangana state creation has reignited the demands for other smaller states like Bodoland, Gorkhland,Harit Pradesh,Bundelkhand, Vidarbha etc.  
             

                     Lets first analyse small states from three perspectives: administrative, economical and developmental implications.

Administrative: yes easy to administer both by political nd bureaucratic bosses nd also convenient fr ppl to visit govt offices nd courts from villages fr day to day dealings, compared to large states lyk UP where nearly 500kms one has to travel to reach the state capital....so it saves both tym nd money....plus delay in administration will lead to corruption nd bribery practises.On the negative side, enormous increase in infrastructural nd human power for a new state.....also small state doesn't guarantee good governance....e.g. Gujarat despite being big state is better governed than Goa.So political will, quality of bureaucracy nd level of education in society also plays an imp factor.

Economically: yes it ll lead to bettr utilisation of available resources ie. Maximising the advantages for the better of states e.g. Green Revolution has turned small states lyk Punjab nd Haryana into most prosperous states.Also funds reaching the beneficiaries wid less leakages......Parts of state can be developed into service sector hubs like Gurgoan and Industrial hubs like Faridabad in Haryana. On the negative side, lack of adequate resources in small states will discourage private investment.Large states lyk Maharastra nd Gujarat attract investors as possibility of hubs creation is more as multiple resources are available....forward-backward linkages r easily formed ie. setting up of SEZ are more economically viable in large states.

Developmental: yes bettr implementation of govt. Policies- health, education, sanitation etc. Also better monitoring of these policies....plus tendency of out migration also reduces considerably.Thus reducing pressures on urban centres. HDI ranking of small states like Kerela, Haryana,Punjab is better than Big states. But we also have examples of North East States which despite small size don't hv development. States lyk Tamil Nadu despite its shear size is having very good development track record.

                                                       So implications are both positive and negative.It is not the mere size of state that contributes towards both economic nd social development of a state. THUS govt should consider all equally ie. administrative convenience, economic development prospects, aspirations of the people on case to case basis while deciding for creation of a New State and not the political gain or linguistic basis if they want to see India Shining. Otherwise it could be disastrous for the country.