What's new

Geopolitics of ASEAN+ region

.
edit1.jpg

Sometimes you worry about the puny. ;)

What if you unknowingly just squeeze your hand close.
 
. .
.
Did you ever heard the concept about bringing togetger Malay race, Like Maphilindo & Melayu Raya?
I Personally much prefer the Unification for malayu people

I heard about it before. I think a greater network of solidarity and unity of Malayu people can be accomodated within ASEAN+. Sub regional efforts within ASEAN+ will strengthen not lessen the greater regional movement.

Why I think ASEAN+ is important is that the region has close to 800 million low to medium developed human resources, while Japan and South Korea has about 160 million highly developed human resources, which is a good match, for economy as well as security. In the long term a regional Union of a billion people will not have to depend on any neighbor or far global super power and can stand on its own as a regional and global power by itself, which is going to be good for all member countries.
 
.
Jeju Island province of Korea:
Jeju Province - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
250px-Jeju_SK.png

Jeju-map.jpg


Chinese companies secretly building Casino in Jeju Island apparently with no permission from Korean govt.:

It is no wonder then that US is planing to make a new base in Jeju and Chinese professor whining about it.

Will S. Korea

Will S. Korea’s New Naval Base Provoke China?
By Andrew Yeo

July 10, 2013

ASEAN2-400x267.jpg

On Jeju Island, a small paradise off the southwest coast of South Korea, protests have occurred on a near daily basis for almost three years.

Although somewhat unusual for an island known for its popularity as a tourist destination for honeymooners, a segment of local residents, joined by domestic and transnational activists, remain staunchly opposed to the construction of a South Korean naval base on an “island of peace.”

Among several their several grievances, opponents of the base argue that its construction may trigger a naval arms race in the region, while increasing tensions with China.

Most South Koreans have dismissed these concerns as either a classic not-in-my-backyard type protest or a politically motivated agenda driven by leftist activists and opposition party members. An August 2011 piece in The Diplomat about the Jeju base, for instance, dismissed opponents’ concerns about the purpose of the naval base and its ties to broader U.S. military objectives in the region. As farfetched as activists may seem in their protests, however, their concerns are worth considering amid the worsening strategic environment in Northeast Asia.

The South Korean government began discussion about a potential naval base on Jeju Island in the 1990s, and during the Roh Moo-hyun administration (2003-2008) the base was approved as a way for the ROK military to transform itself into a more self-reliant defense force – that is, one less dependent on the United States.

Currently, the base remains consistent with South Korea’s future plans to modernize its military by building a blue-water navy by 2020.

The base also helps secure South Korean national interests amid China’s growing maritime ambitions. Given South Korea’s reliance on exports and imports, the vast majority of which are transported by sea, South Korea cannot afford to have its sea lanes disrupted. And, contrary to claims by some opponents of the Jeju base, the base is not a de facto U.S. base but unequivocally a South Korean one.

Where opponents are on more solid ground, however, is in drawing a link between the base and U.S. strategic interests in Asia. Although the U.S. military must first make a request and have it accepted by the South Korean government, it is reasonable to assume that the U.S. Navy will eventually gain access to the base. After all, the emerging U.S. force posture in the region is aimed at securing access to allied bases rather than committing to any large-scale, permanent ones. And, given the importance of the U.S.-ROK alliance to South Korea, there is no reason to believe that Seoul would reject a request for port access.

This is what makes the base so potentially destabilizing for its detractors as they believe that giving the U.S. access to the base will provoke China. Of course, South Korea does not want to antagonize China, or see tensions rise between Beijing and Washington. Unfortunately, state behavior in international relations is often driven by (mis) perceptions. In this particular case, Chinese perceptions of the U.S.-ROK alliance are what worry peace activists. They fear that the Jeju base will trigger a regional naval arms race.

Protests or no protests, construction of the Jeju Naval base is in full swing and quickly becoming a reality. The conflict scenarios which concern activists are often built on worst case scenarios and tend to fall on the alarmist side.

Nevertheless, as base construction proceeds, policymakers should consider some of the broader geostrategic implications of the base. Although China has registered any major objections to the base as of yet, mid-level bureaucrats have referenced base construction in relation to the China-ROK territorial dispute over the Socotra Rocks.

South Korean policymakers therefore need to reassure China that the base exists solely for defensive purposes, and tread carefully if it chooses to negotiate basing access rights with the United States. Beyond enhanced South Korean diplomacy, Beijing, Seoul, and Washington may want to include the Jeju base in future trilateral dialogues. As long time peace activist Joseph Gerson argues, the aim is to seek “common security” among East Asian actors rather than pursue “zero-sum resolutions to the region's conflicts.”

Andrew Yeo is an Assistant Professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He is the author of Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
^
Will China military base in Cuba provoke US government?

Will helping US dissident provoke US government?

US is hypocrite...as usual, but Taiwan love it.
 
.
^
Will China military base in Cuba provoke US government?

Will helping US dissident provoke US government?

US is hypocrite...as usual, but Taiwan love it.

Please see the dailymotion video, it is about 43 minutes. Its in Korean, so you will need a Korean friend to translate. This investigative report is talking about how Lee Myung Bak govt. and Jeju province politicians colluded to give permission to Chinese companies to build resorts, but they are actually building Casino without permission. There is big concern about too many Chinese businesses investing in resorts, hotels and restaurants catering to Chinese tourists coming by cruise ships. The profits from these businesses are mostly going back to China, while the locals get little benefit and the beautiful island environment is getting messed up due to these shady investments.

Park Geun Hye, the current president, is apparently allowing these reports to come out, in a way to attack the corruption by previous president, Lee Myung Bak, from the same party, just to gain popularity.

The US and Chaebols control politics in Korea with their favored political party, which is currently in power, my guess is that the same party (known also as the "traitor party" by opposition Uri party supporters) will sell Korean national interest to Chinese, when China will be in a position to buy loyalty. Sad days for Korea ahead.

So the bases in Korea are here to stay, till ASEAN+ becomes a reality, as unpalatable as it may be to China.
 
. .
Jeju Island province of Korea:
Jeju Province - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
250px-Jeju_SK.png

Jeju-map.jpg


Chinese companies secretly building Casino in Jeju Island apparently with no permission from Korean govt.:

It is no wonder then that US is planing to make a new base in Jeju and Chinese professor whining about it.

Will S. Korea

Will S. Korea’s New Naval Base Provoke China?
By Andrew Yeo

July 10, 2013

ASEAN2-400x267.jpg

On Jeju Island, a small paradise off the southwest coast of South Korea, protests have occurred on a near daily basis for almost three years.

Although somewhat unusual for an island known for its popularity as a tourist destination for honeymooners, a segment of local residents, joined by domestic and transnational activists, remain staunchly opposed to the construction of a South Korean naval base on an “island of peace.”

Among several their several grievances, opponents of the base argue that its construction may trigger a naval arms race in the region, while increasing tensions with China.

Most South Koreans have dismissed these concerns as either a classic not-in-my-backyard type protest or a politically motivated agenda driven by leftist activists and opposition party members. An August 2011 piece in The Diplomat about the Jeju base, for instance, dismissed opponents’ concerns about the purpose of the naval base and its ties to broader U.S. military objectives in the region. As farfetched as activists may seem in their protests, however, their concerns are worth considering amid the worsening strategic environment in Northeast Asia.

The South Korean government began discussion about a potential naval base on Jeju Island in the 1990s, and during the Roh Moo-hyun administration (2003-2008) the base was approved as a way for the ROK military to transform itself into a more self-reliant defense force – that is, one less dependent on the United States.

Currently, the base remains consistent with South Korea’s future plans to modernize its military by building a blue-water navy by 2020.

The base also helps secure South Korean national interests amid China’s growing maritime ambitions. Given South Korea’s reliance on exports and imports, the vast majority of which are transported by sea, South Korea cannot afford to have its sea lanes disrupted. And, contrary to claims by some opponents of the Jeju base, the base is not a de facto U.S. base but unequivocally a South Korean one.

Where opponents are on more solid ground, however, is in drawing a link between the base and U.S. strategic interests in Asia. Although the U.S. military must first make a request and have it accepted by the South Korean government, it is reasonable to assume that the U.S. Navy will eventually gain access to the base. After all, the emerging U.S. force posture in the region is aimed at securing access to allied bases rather than committing to any large-scale, permanent ones. And, given the importance of the U.S.-ROK alliance to South Korea, there is no reason to believe that Seoul would reject a request for port access.

This is what makes the base so potentially destabilizing for its detractors as they believe that giving the U.S. access to the base will provoke China. Of course, South Korea does not want to antagonize China, or see tensions rise between Beijing and Washington. Unfortunately, state behavior in international relations is often driven by (mis) perceptions. In this particular case, Chinese perceptions of the U.S.-ROK alliance are what worry peace activists. They fear that the Jeju base will trigger a regional naval arms race.

Protests or no protests, construction of the Jeju Naval base is in full swing and quickly becoming a reality. The conflict scenarios which concern activists are often built on worst case scenarios and tend to fall on the alarmist side.

Nevertheless, as base construction proceeds, policymakers should consider some of the broader geostrategic implications of the base. Although China has registered any major objections to the base as of yet, mid-level bureaucrats have referenced base construction in relation to the China-ROK territorial dispute over the Socotra Rocks.

South Korean policymakers therefore need to reassure China that the base exists solely for defensive purposes, and tread carefully if it chooses to negotiate basing access rights with the United States. Beyond enhanced South Korean diplomacy, Beijing, Seoul, and Washington may want to include the Jeju base in future trilateral dialogues. As long time peace activist Joseph Gerson argues, the aim is to seek “common security” among East Asian actors rather than pursue “zero-sum resolutions to the region's conflicts.”

Andrew Yeo is an Assistant Professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He is the author of Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests.

Local Koreans on Jeju have been protesting the base for years

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/world/asia/19base.html?pagewanted=all

Korean Protesters Break Into Big U.S. Army Base - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/world/asia/03korea.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/world/asia/03korea.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/world/asia/03south.html?_r=0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
cross posted:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangladesh-defence/275937-japanese-plan-indian-ocean-bangladesh.html

Japan’s Diplomatic Agenda for the Asia-Pacific

Japan’s Diplomatic Agenda for the Asia-Pacific
Suzuki Yoshikatsu
[2012.01.30]Read in: 日本語 | 简体字 | 繁體字 |

The year 2012 marks the start of efforts to build a new order in the Asia-Pacific region. The world faces a number of difficult issues and situations whose outcome is in doubt: the Arab Spring, the European crisis, Iran’s nuclear program, and the outlook for North Korea after the death of Kim Jong-il. Now is the time for writing new rules and formulating new frameworks for an era of change. Things are already beginning to stir on the political stage, with changes of government, scheduled or otherwise, likely in a number of countries in the near future.

A Test for Japanese Diplomacy

The struggle for hegemony between the United States and China is intensifying in the Asia-Pacific. What is required of Japanese diplomacy in this context? What are the foreign policy aims of the Japanese government over the coming year?

The Japan-US alliance is the cornerstone of Japanese foreign policy. Accordingly, it is trends in China that are the biggest variable affecting Japan. Given that Washington’s defense budget is likely to remain under constraint for some time to come, Tokyo needs to ask itself how it can sustain and strengthen the deterrent effect of the alliance, while acting to back up the United States. This is perhaps the single most important long-term task for Japan’s national security policy.

Japanese support for the Philippines, for instance, is a major factor in this context. For the US armed forces stationed in Japan, the Philippines represents the midway point between the vital bases in Okinawa and Australia; its location puts it at the center of a region where a military power vacuum might develop. In the early 1990s the United States withdrew from the Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines, where they had been in a position to respond to a crisis in Taiwan. Now that China has begun to flex its maritime muscles, the US military has become painfully aware of the importance of the Philippines as a key stronghold in the Asia-Pacific region.

The United States has sought to reestablish a military foothold in the Philippines by securing the use of certain Philippine military facilities, but its presence is not even close to a level that would exert a deterrent force against China. According to a source in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo “stands ready to cooperate with Manila in upgrading the Philippine Coast Guard. Relaxing Japan’s three principles on arms exports(*) should make a major contribution in the context of Japanese aid to the Philippines.”

Establishing a Presence in the Indian Ocean

Government officials are also considering a policy for securing a position in the Indian Ocean. Tokyo’s hope is to counter Beijing’s “string of pearls” strategy, designed to enhance its military presence in the Indian Ocean. In response, Tokyo will look to beef up its own presence in such countries as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, sending Naval Self-Defense Force vessels to distant waters, where they will make goodwill tours and participate in joint exercises. In addition, Tokyo wants to move closer to Myanmar, which had been squarely in China’s camp but is now seeking a better balance by improving its ties with the United States. It is likely that Japan will also look to establish a foothold in ports on the Indian Ocean.

A top MOFA official characterized the agenda for 2012 in this way: “This will be a year for completing tasks that have previously been postponed, and clearing the way for new initiatives in 2013 and the years that follow.” At the end of 2011, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the normalization of Japan-China relations, Prime Minister Noda Yoshihiko made a visit to China and India. A key point of interest during the prime minister’s trip to these two regional giants, which share a border, was whether Tokyo and New Delhi would regularize annual reciprocal visits by their heads of government. The ties between Japan and India are approaching a point where they might be used as a check against China.

On January 9 Ichikawa Yasuo, then the Japanese defense minister, began a visit to Mongolia, where he and his Mongolian counterpart signed a memorandum on stronger defense cooperation. This was a strategic move devised primarily with China and Russia in mind. Japan has thus sent a high-ranking official into “China’s backyard.” But can strategic diplomatic moves like this be developed more fully, with points extended into lines and lines broadened into surfaces? After all, Japanese politics is still adrift, after a long succession of short-lived prime ministers that stretches all the way back to Koizumi Jun’ichirō’s resignation in 2006. This year will also be a time for watching to see whether these seeds that have been sown will bear fruit from 2013 on. (January 16, 2012)

(Originally written in Japanese.)
(*) ^ These principles prohibit arms deals with communist countries, countries subject to UN Security Council sanctions, and countries engaged in or likely to become engaged in international conflicts. Now in the process of being relaxed, they have previously been interpreted as outlawing the export of virtually all arms and military technology.
 
.
.
Cross posted from another thread:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/arab-d...hief-bandar-bin-sultan-insults-qataris-2.html

I think it is possible to make changes in small ways, without rocking the boat too much. We don't need to go for big unions initially, that may sound threatening to US and others.

The way forward is to work on joint projects and develop a common military hardware specification and platform.

The problem for us is that most Muslim countries are either too small or even we are big in population, we have negligible resources.

You saw that I made a very specific proposal about 5th gen. fighter project. This could be a first step. GCC countries could get together and make a decision to invest lets say 20 billion in this joint 5th gen. fighter project, with Japan, Turkey and South Korea as tech partners, whereas Indonesia and GCC states will share financing as well as buy a number of these planes:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/middle...outh-korean-fighter-planes-7.html#post4754494

And then behind the scenes, we could start working on ASEAN+ idea:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180755-geopolitics-asean-region.html
Perhaps GCC+ ideas will be ready when we have made some progress on ASEAN+. All diplomatic work could be done within the framework of bilateral relations or changes in ASEAN membership etc.

All elements are there to get it done. If I am in touch with the right person, I could share ideas to proceed. For a thousand mile journey, there is always the first step that has to be taken.

Unity is a good sounding word, but it does not mean much, unless it brings concrete benefits. That is why I mentioned concrete projects, where all sides can benefit, such as the 5th gen. fighter project. And unity should be for not just Muslim countries, we need unity of small nations of the world.

I do not think Shia and Sunni will unite, at least not Iran. Iran has backing of Russia and China. At this juncture of history you can work only between Muslim and other nations that are under Western umbrella or at least friendly with the West. So Iraq is a possibility. Iran is a pariah state under Western sanctions, so they are out of question. All nations I mentioned are in the Western camp:

- Japan, South Korea - has technology and industrial base and has ATD-X and KAI-KFX project
- Turkey - inferior to above, but still has minimum tech and industrial base and the highest in this regard among Muslim countries, thinking of spending $120 billion total for TAI-TFX project
- Indonesia - biggest Muslim country, medium economy and has some defense budget, already promised to support 20% of KAI-KFX project
- GCC states has Sovereign Wealth Fund worth around $2 trillion and they are ready market for about 400 fighters

If GCC states approach the 4 countries above with a proposal to bring the 3 (ATD-X, KFX and TFX) separate projects into one common project, on condition that Japan rewrites its constitution removing export restriction of weapon, then I think we have win-win among all these countries. Will the US want to put road block, sure. But when so many of US allies want to do a common shared project and its not something illegal, it is free trade after all, then I doubt they can stop it, if there is public and govt. support from the countries involved.

Both Russia and China are important for Muslims, no question. Specially once US led NATO looses their looming cold war with China, which will happen in 2-4 decades.

But before that point, essentially most of us are in the US led NATO camp and we should make the most of it, transferring and developing as much indigenous technology as possible. Japan and South Korea are also in US camp, mainly because they are threatened by China and by the little Chinese pet poodle or pit bull, North Korea. What is special about Japan and South Korea is that they have highly developed industrial base, even much more advanced than China or Russia.

So right now before us there is this opportunity to bring all these countries together combining ATD-X, TFX and KFX projects, make it into a single project with fighters of two different price levels, thus save money and at the same time develop a common standard for many small nations of the world. Similar projects can be looked at for Tanks, Howitzers, APC etc. If many of these small nations can have the same military hardware, then it will be easier for these nations to create new Asian security alliances like NATO.

As for Bangladesh, may be we will buy a few dozen of the cheaper version of the plane ($50 million a piece) and some associated UCAV's. The main thing we would be interested in is a new alliance bloc called ASEAN+ (ASEAN+Japan+South Korea+North Korea+Bangladesh+Sri Lanka+PNG+East Timor), under US Asia pivot plan, so many of these countries can be efficiently managed by Japan and Korean personnel. This Japan led independent power bloc with large 400 million Muslim population (Indonesia+Malaysia+Brunei+Bangladesh) can easily become more independent of China and also provide security guarantee for GCC states and thus reduce the need for dependence on the USA. This will then help GCC to integrate more and become like a single state from Iraq to Yemen and also help Arab states in Maghreb to integrate their roads, railways and economies.

Pakistan is very close to China and shares many technical partnership with China, so I am not sure if they would like to participate in these projects, jeopardizing their good relations with China.
 
.
kalu_miah is day dreaming. I don't think Bangladesh will become a member in ASEAN group or plus.
 
.
cross posted:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...s-implication-regional-world-geopolitics.html

I have long advocated the idea of ASEAN+ as an optimum and balanced solution for the geopolitical conundrum in this region. There is a rising China and a somewhat slowly rising India. Both countries rise is threatening for their neighbors in terms of security, but creates economic opportunity for smaller regional nations, mainly in the case of China. To offset this security threat, continued presence of US bases and US alliance as an offshore balancer seems to be the solution that Japan and South Korea chose, although the US initially came in uninvited as a victor in WW II and as a cold war rival of Communist Russia and China in Korea, dividing up the peninsula.

ASEAN+ would be good for all nations in the region, because its a workable compromise:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180755-geopolitics-asean-region.html

Unfortunately Japan has initiated in a wrong course in recent months. What Japan is trying to do is betting its future with continued US supremacy in world stage and in East Asia and form the following Diamond alliance, as it became clear that US Pivot to Asia is nothing but words, which essentially mean the EU will need to start taking more responsibility for its own defence and security arrangement, without putting further burden on US taxpayers. This Diamond alliance has four main geographical entities:

- USA, Alaska
- Australia
- Japan
- India

And it will possibly include some ASEAN nations that are having territorial problems with China, such as Vietnam and Philippines.

This is a wrong long term approach for the following reasons:

By choosing to ally with India and thus helping India’s attempts to rise in competition with China, the risk for Japan is that it will antagonize all nations that considers India as a threat - these nations are nations that border India (including China) or are nearby such as Sri Lanka, as well as most Muslims nations of the world who consider India as one of the most anti-Muslim nations of the world. Although India contains the 2nd or 3rd largest Muslim population of the world after Indonesia and possibly Pakistan, as is shown from the recent riots, Muslim lives are not safe and secure in India, they are under constant threat for random riot incidents, instigated by Hindutva radical extremist political parties and their activists. A militarily more powerful India will not only translate into more threat perception by Muslim nations in South Asia, but also for Muslim nations elsewhere, regardless of the facade of good relations its diplomats have managed to achieve with some of these nations.

Japan’s latest attempt to join India in an alliance and thus empower this Hindutva terrorist and radical extremist infested nation, will be a continuation of Japanese racist and imperialist policies that it engaged in during WW II and caused untold atrocities killing many millions among many different nations, including China, who bore the main brunt of Japanese attempt to subjugate almost all of East Asia. It seems Japan has not learned from its past mistakes, in fact Japan has not yet apologized the way Germany has. History of Japan’s self defeating policies go much further back in history. Yamato Wa, a fledgeling Japanese country in 7th century, had close cultural and family links with the royal dynasty of Baekje, a small Korean kingdom, during the 3 kingdoms era. Yamato Wa tried to help its ally by sending an Armada in a last ditch effort to save that kingdom. Unfortunately the Armada faced a crushing defeat and total annihilation at the hand of Silla-Tang alliance:
Battle of Baekgang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A recent historical Korean drama covers this battle and the background in great detail. I will try to post a link to it later.

I would urge China and ASEAN nations to reconsider the ASEAN+ idea to persuade Japan away from choosing this wrong path. If Japan is adamant and continues in this path, as is usually the case when it has made up its mind, then I predict that the following scenario may emerge in the rest of the region:

1. Instead of Japan and South Korea taking the lead in developing and integrating the ASEAN countries, it will be China and South Korea who will take the lead, just like the Silla-Tang alliance in old days, standing up against an Imperialist Japan and its new lackey, India
2. China and South Korea will work together to reduce Japanese and Indian influence in the region, so the ASEAN+ idea will remain intact, but it will exclude Japan and include China as the main leader and sponsor, but not formally a part of it
3. ASEAN nations such as Vietnam and Philippines who will go along with the Japanese plan, will be excluded from the ASEAN economic and infrastructure integration plan till they decide to end their support for the India-Japan axis plan and approach
3. Since Vietnam borders China, I believe it will be possible to persuade them using economic incentives and reaching some bilateral compromise about territorial issues
4. Philippines on the other hand will be harder to handle, because of Western influence, although Chinese should make sustained efforts to bring them back closer to other ASEAN nations. If all attempts fail, then China and other ASEAN and Muslim nations spread out in Asia and Africa should reduce trade with all nations that will join this new Japan-India axis of racism bent on genocide of their neighbors

Just like Japan has planned a Japan-India axis as part of the Diamond alliance, Japan is testing the water for another alliance with another large neighbor of China who is close to China, but at the same time feels threatened by China’s rise at some level. This large neighbor happens to be Russia. Shinzo Abe has been visiting many of China’s neighbors in recent months and Russia is one of these countries. Recently there has been some thawing of relationship between the two countries. The 4 northern islands that Russia occupied at the tail end of WW II, Russia is considering shared use with Japan for at least 2 of these islands.

To counter Japanese foray in Eurasia, Chinese could help to create a competing Southern Eurasian Union, comprising of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. A stable region like this has tremendous development potential and could work to reduce Russian influence and finally draw in the 5 Central Asian stan’s.

Reference:
Decision Time for India Regarding a Security Alliance
Wanted: An Externally Oriented Japan | Nippon.com
Abbott's challenge in Asia
Australia and India: Indo-Pacific Partners / ISN
Hagel says joint exercise expansion key to Asia Pacific pivot -- Defense Systems
Japan and India: The making of a new alliance? / ISN
India Places Its Asian Bet on Japan: Roiling the Waters of the Asia-Pacific ?????????????????????????? :: JapanFocus
A Russia-China Alliance Brewing? | The Diplomat
Russia seeks informal alliance with Japan - Arlington Foreign Policy | Examiner.com
China sees ‘encircle’ ploy in India ties
China-Russia cooperation vs US-Japan military alliance
Working for India or against Islam? Islamophobia in Indian American Lobbies
Priorities for Japan
Shifting Definitions of

The following threads in PDF cover similar subject:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...threatens-india-japan-strategic-alliance.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tage-china-japan-disputes-chinese-expert.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/255626-india-japan-pantomime-message-china.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...an-bet-japan-roiling-waters-asia-pacific.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...circle-ploy-india-ties-big-boys-big-guns.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/227148-forging-india-japan-n-axis.html
The Indian Piece of Abe's Security Diamond
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom