CHINAS DECLINING TRAJECTORY UNDER PRESIDENT XI JINPING'S TWELVE- YEAR IRON RULE: A PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS

Perceptibly, Peoples Republic of China can be estimated to have struck a 'Declining Trajectory' under twelve years of ruthless iron rule of incumbent President Xi Jinping who fancies himself as Mao-Tse Tung 2.0.

Xi Jinping has been President of Communist China since 2013. Prior to that he was Secretary of Chinese Communist Party since 2012.  He also has been Vice President of China 2008-13.

In the first few years of his rule President Xi Jinping captured China's all three levers of power, namely, President of China, Secretary Chinese Communist Party and Chairman, Central Military Commission.

In the process, President Xi Jinping ruthlessly deposed /eliminated all opposition to him in the higher ranks of the Party, bureaucracy, and more notably, Generals in the Peoples Liberation Army.

China was at its peak in terms of geopolitical stature, economic strength and military power when President Xi Jinping assumed power in Beijing in 2013.

China's ascendant power trajectory was a heady mix of United States geopolitical permissiveness, massive flow of FDI from United States and China's creation of a 'Blue Water Navy in the years preceding 2013 due to American strategic distractions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2013, with President Xi Jinping in power in Beijing, China switched from 'Soft Power' strategies to exercise of 'Hard Power', military brinkmanship and aggression from South China Sea to the Himalayan Heights of India's Northern Borders with China Occupied Tibet.

In the pursuance of his 'Great China Dream' and fancying himself as true inheritor of Mao Tse Tung, President Xi Jinping adopted a reckless geopolitical course of flexing military muscle on China's peripheries and thereby raising widespread strategic concern of a China Threat with Hitlerian impulses.

In 2024, major indicators of China's power profile lead towards a predictable estimate of 'Declining Trajectory' which with China's widening 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' may get more pronounced as years unfold.

As a matter of fact, in my earlier writings with South Analysis Group, since around 2015 or so, I have been emphasizing that China has glaring 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' which offer a window of opportunity to both United States and India. to exploit.

Briefly outlined below, is a focus on China's glaring 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' which are prompting world capitals to revise the American propagated 'Myth' that China is a Superpower, done more to squeeze funds for defense budget from US Congress.

Geopolitically, China in 2024, under President Xi Jinping has lost its geopolitical Lustre. With Russia-China Axis solidifying, China's 'geopolitical asset value' to United States and West, has virtually diminished.

Geopolitically, China today, can be estimated to be diplomatically isolated in Indo Pacific width deep polarization, heavily weighted against it.

Economically, under President Xi Jinping China has taken a virtual nose-dive. From double-digit annual growth rates hovering around 12.5 %, the growth rates have dropped to about 6 %.

China's major economic strength of global domination in 'Manufactures Strength' today stands whittled down with US & Western capital outflows to Vietnam and India.

China's housing sector is in a state of collapse with a million dwelling units lying unsold and infrastructure giants collapsing. It has a cascading effect on Chinese economy.

China's Provinces are heavily in debt forcing diversion of Central Budget to bail them out.

Reports suggest that there is widespread domestic unrest brewing which is being brutally suppressed.

Economically, China may have been an Economic Superpower, but that story is now past. Its trillion dollars economy is besieged with 'trillions of economic vulnerabilities'.

Undoubtedly, China has a massive military machine backed by Nuclear Weapons and ICBMs. China's military power stands concentrated in Occupied Tibet and Coastal Provinces on Pacific littoral.

In 2024, China's virtual military hegemony stands challenged by the military rise of India and Japan as 'contending Asian Powers' and both having territorial disputes with China.

In 2924, China has been stared back even by the Philippines in its South China sea disputes

The overall 'Balance of Power' against China in Indo Pacific is heavily weighted against it, by US-led security architecture resting on bilateral security alliances and multilateral security groupings like QUAD, SQUAD, AUKUS and the many Trilaterals with US of Western Pacific nations.

Importantly, China's Armed Forces despite their manpower dominance and technical advancements have never been tried and tested in combat.

Military purges and liquidations of Chinese military hierarchy including rent case of the Defense Minister by President Xi Jinping suggest both a backlash against Chinese President's imperial hold and dissension within ranks of Armed Forces.

Moving to the more unquantifiable element of 'National Cohesion' it can be asserted that the above discussed factors coupled with restiveness in China's outlying Western Frontiers of Occupied Sinkiang and Occupied Tibet, China has a fistful of Internal Security challenges. No wonder that the budget for Chinese Armed Police tasked for internal suppression, some say, outstrips that of the Chinese Army.

Concluding, the following major observations sustain the prediction that China is plunging into a 'Declining Trajectory' under the 12 -year iron rule of President Xi Jinping: 

• China's geopolitical weightage has considerably whittled down. China is no longer viewed in world capitals as a responsible stakeholder in upholding regional and global peace and stability.
• China's long-vaunted economic strengths stand greatly diminished by China's trillions of economic problems discussed above and rise of India's manufacturing strengths.
• Militarily, the Balance of Power' is heavily weighted against China by two successive US Presidents 'Hard Line' policies on China, crafting a host of security groupings to combat the unfolding China Threat.
• Military rise of India and Japan and their contributions to building military capacity of Western Pacific nations is a serious challenge to China's unquestioned military dominance so afar.
• China's military budget cannot escape cuts due to China's slow- down of economy.

 China's 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' can be expected to grow as any 'Reverse Gears' by President Xi Jinping are predictably unthinkable.

Predictably, the other monolith Communist Power that is Former Soviet Union disintegrated under weight of economic vulnerabilities, domestic discontent and ethnic restiveness in 1991 after 72 years of Communist rule, Can Communist China with glaring 'Strategic Vulnerabilities' last longer?

History provides no evidence of 'Totalitarian States' lasting for a Century or beyond. Can Communist China emerge to the contrary? 

 

UNITED STATES CAN ILL AFFORD TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGIES AS OPPOSED TO NURTURING OF STRATEGIC ALLIANCES/PARTNERSHIPS

United States can ill-afford transactional strategic relationships demanding "Protection Money" for US security guarantees to its long- standing military alliances or implied assurances to its valued strategic partners like India.

This issue cropped up recently when in the ongoing US Presidential campaign, the Republican candidate, Former US President Trump seeking re-election, warned Taiwan that if it wants United States to protect it against China, then Taiwan must pay for it.

The United States must guard against such rhetoric as it endangers United States recognized status as guarantor of global security. 

The above not only shakes strategic trust and confidence in US Allies of long standing and time-tested Alliances but also sows doubts in Nations in process of evolving credible strategic partnerships with the United States.

Lying at the core of this issue is the simple question and that is whether US Allies need 'security alliances' with the United States "more", than the other way around?

The answer too is simple. In today's unpredictable and uncharted geopolitical scenarios when the Russia-China Axis is solidifying and drawing more adherents to its side, the United States can ill-afford to loosen or shake its 'Security Alliances' by its Presidential contenders' intention to call for 'Protection Money' for security provided.

The United States should not unlearn the bitter lessons of its 'Transactional Strategic Relationships' record. Pakistan is the prime example. Pouring in billions in military aid to Pakistan in transactional strategies failed to secure Pakistan as a 'trusted Ally' of the United States. Pakistan today lies squarely with China which is the United States prime threat and enemy.

Security of Homeland United States rests critically on United States security relationships with NATO in terms of European security against the Russian Threat and on its spider-web of bilateral Mutual Security Treaties in Western Pacific against the China Threat with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan.

Admittedly, the point is well taken that the United States economically cannot shoulder the burden of stationing US Forces in thousands in Forward Military Presence in Jaan and South Korea or elsewhere. Japan and South Korea as economically vibrant nations pay for hosting US Forces on their soil. The quantum of Host Nations shouldering the financial burden is mutually negotiated out of glare of publicity.

However, to make outlandish statements demanding 'Protection Money' from Philippines or Taiwan even in the heat of election campaign rhetoric is demeaning for United States stature as the global predominant Power.

Concluding, it needs to be stressed that if the United States intends to retain its decades-old global strategic predominance and secure Homeland USA, its top-most priority needs to be to "Nurture" its Strategic Alliances/ Partners and not demand "Protection Money' so that the element of 'Strategic Distrust' does not creep-in and dilute these strategic relationships.

The United States needs NATO solidarity and Western Pacific US Allies solidarity more than ever before.

 

 

UNITED STATES AND INDIA'S DIFFERING POLICY PERCEPTIONS ON RUSSIA: IMPLICATIONS ANALYSED:

United States and India in 2024 bonded together by a vibrant Global Strategic Partnership, however, now face a piquant situation, where their differing policy perspectives on Russia, is causing irritable strains, and which could raise unintended implications.

United States and India's differing policy perceptions on Russia have come into sharper focus with Indian PM Narendra Modi's recent visit to Moscow where for optical reasons, Russian President Putin, displayed more than usual effusive bonhomie.

The above contextually viewed with India's abstention on US-sponsored UN Resolution calling on Russia to cease the war in Ukraine, has drawn American criticism.

United States in 2024 perceives Russia, after Russian Invasion of Ukraine, as a potent threat to European security and a threat to Indo Pacific security, when viewed in the Russia-China context.

India in 2024, weighed down by multilateralism foreign policy prescriptions, and with the historical record of Russia-India Strategic Partnership, predating the US-India Strategic Partnership, by decades, is loath to outrightly jettison this relationship.

The above Indian policy perception prevails despite that Russia in 2024 is strategically closely tied to India's arch-enemy China.

In terms of implications, India stands to lose more geopolitically, than United States, if both India and the United States cannot overcome the strain caused in their differing policy perceptions on Russia.

The irrefutable fact is that India's considerable weightage in global geopolitics power-play surfaced only with US-India "Estrangement" of the last century having been transformed into "Active Engagement" in the last ten years.

The above set in motion a strategic re-evaluation of India in the foreign policy calculations in Major Powers capitals.

The United States has been accommodative of India's differing policy perceptions on Russia and Iran for the last many years.

However. in 2024, when the World Order is heavily polarized, reminiscent of Cold War 1.0 vintage, and with Russia-China Axis in active play in the Ukraine War, the United States, West, and US Allies in the Pacific, including countries like Japan, may not be all that accommodative of India's perceptions of Russia.

Visible recently, as a result of the above, possibly, are the United States to forge a newer set of strategic groupings superimposed on the existing security architecture in Western Pacific. India does not figure in them.

So, what are India's options to restore the vibrancy in US-India Strategic Partnership?

While I am not suggesting that India should jettison its long-standing relations with Russia, it is also incumbent on India not to give the impression that it is playing the 'India Card' with more than protocol diplomacy.

Contextual geopolitical landscape of a heavily confrontationist bipolar world in 2024, as repeatedly stressed by me earlier, does not offer India the bandwidth of Nehruvian foreign policy stances, juggling Non-alignment with Multilateralism.

India till 2047, needs a' Countervailing Power' as a standby to face a highly belligerent China in no mood to settle issues with India.

The choice for India is between United States and Russia. Russia does not have the geopolitical weight and strategic potential to be one.

United States provides a good option to be India's Countervailing Power against China. It needs to be recalled that in 1962, Nehru was ultimately forced to enlist United States assistance to countervail China.

India needs to prudently make its 'Strategic Choices' as to who serves India's national security interests more effectively.

 

  

TIBET THRUST INTO GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL COSCIOUSNESS BY UNITED STATES LEGISLATION DEBUNKING CHINA'S CLAIMS OVER TIBET

The United States bowing to geopolitical imperatives, in a significant Congress Legislation, has pushed China Occupied Tibet into global consciousness which not only defines Tibet's geographical boundaries but also debunks China's 'historical claims' of sovereignty over Tibet.

In a bipartisan move, passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of the US Congress the "Promoting a Resolution of the Tibet-China Conflict Act 2024" milestone and historic.  The Bill now has gone to President Joe Biden for signature,

The Act is exhaustive, and for purposes of this Paper, the most significant observations which have geopolitical consequences, have been lifted from the Act, and produced verbatim:

• "Tibet including those areas incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Yunan, Gansu and Qinghai, is an Occupied Territory, contrary to principles of international law".
• Tibet's true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile as recognized by the Tibetan people".
• Tibet has remained throughout history, a distinctive and sovereign national, cultural and religious identity, separate from that of China except during short periods of illegal occupation, has maintained a separate and sovereign political and national identity."
• "The United States Government has never taken the position that Tibet is part of China since ancient times or that the means by what the Government Peoples Republic of China came to exert effective control over Tibet was consistent with international law or included the force of meaningful consent of the Tibetan people."

Further emphasis on the above is stated in Section 4 "Sense of the Congress' which states: 

• Claims made by the officials of Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times are false."
• The Government of Peoples Republic of China has failed to meet the expectations of the United States to engage in meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama or representatives towards a peaceful settlement of the unresolved conflict between Tibet and the Peoples Republic of China."
• "United States public diplomacy should counter disinformation about Tibet from the Government of Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, including disinformation about the history of Tibet, the Tibetan people and the Tibetan institutions, including that of the Dalai Lama."

The 'Resolution of Tibet-China Conflict Act 2024" once signed by President Biden, is a quantum jump by the United States over the 'US Tibet Policy Act 2002' , both in terms of 'statutory definitions' of Tibet and United States policy assertions on Tibet, which would form the basis of  'Reset of US Tibet Policy' for the future. 

The significant policy assertions made by United States on Tibet, as passed by the US Congress are as follows:

• Tibet's territorial and international status as Tibet is not confined to what China Terms as Tibet Autonomous Region but extends to include Tibetan Areas in China's neighboring areas stated above. 
• Tibet throughout its history (excepting spells of Chinese Occupation) has remained a distinctive political 'sovereign' entity.
• United States 'has never taken position that Tibet is part of China' as claimed by China and Chinese Communist Party. US dismisses China's historical assertions in this regard. (US documents from 1919 to date have been cited)
• United States long-standing policy that Tibet-China Conflict has to be resolved by China in negotiations with The Dalai Lama or his representatives, 'without any pre-conditions.' 

It needs to be recalled that China has not entered into any negotiations with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, since 2010 asserting that Dalai Lama is not the representative of the Tibetan people.

United States now forcefully asserts that The Dalai Lama d the Tibet Government-in-exile are the true representatives of the Tibetan peoples. This is a politically heavily loaded challenge for China. 

China has been put on notice on Tibet's future by the United States by unambiguous policy declarations,

 not made so explicitly before.

Expectedly, US Allies and strategic partners would take the lead provided by United States in "Reset" of their policy stands on Tibet, now that the United States has thrust Tibet into global conscience. 

Finally, it needs to be stressed that the latest US Bill's policy assertions reinforce the fact that Tibet is presently, "China Occupied Tibet", as I have maintained in my writings for two decades and that China's historical claims are 'fabricated claims' which are illegal.