Archive for the ‘India’ Category

The Sino-Indian Water Divide

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

This article, from the Project syndicate in India, discusses what is probably the most sensitive and dangerous obstacle to China’s economic growth in future years, water. Although this article is written from an Indian perspective, it gives a good hint at what might lie ahead.

As China and India gain economic heft, they are drawing ever more international attention at the time of an ongoing global shift of power to Asia. Their underlying strategic dissonance and rivalry, however, usually attracts less notice.
As its power grows, China seems determined to choke off Asian competitors, a tendency reflected in its hardening stance toward India. This includes aggressive patrolling of the disputed Himalayan frontier by the People’s Liberation Army, many violations of the line of control separating the two giants, new assertiveness concerning India’s northeastern Arunachal Pradesh state – which China claims as its own – and vituperative attacks on India in the state-controlled Chinese media.
The issues that divide India and China, however, extend beyond territorial disputes. Water is becoming a key security issue in Sino-Indian relations and a potential source of enduring discord.
China and India already are water-stressed economies. The spread of irrigated farming and water-intensive industries, together with the demands of a rising middle class, have led to a severe struggle for more water. Indeed, both countries have entered an era of perennial water scarcity, which before long is likely to equal, in terms of per capita availability, the water shortages found in the Middle East.
Rapid economic growth could slow in the face of acute scarcity if demand for water continues to grow at its current frantic pace, turning China and India – both food-exporting countries – into major importers, a development that would accentuate the global food crisis.
Even though India has more arable land than China – 160.5 million hectares compared to 137.1 million hectares – Tibet is the source of most major Indian rivers. The Tibetan plateau’s vast glaciers, huge underground springs and high altitude make Tibet the world’s largest freshwater repository after the polar icecaps. Indeed, all of Asia’s major rivers, except the Ganges, originate in the Tibetan plateau. Even the Ganges’ two main tributaries flow in from Tibet.
But China is now pursuing major inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects on the Tibetan plateau, which threatens to diminish international-river flows into India and other co-riparian states. Before such hydro-engineering projects sow the seeds of water conflict, China ought to build institutionalized, cooperative river-basin arrangements with downstream states.
Upstream dams, barrages, canals, and irrigation systems can help fashion water into a political weapon that can be wielded overtly in a war, or subtly in peacetime to signal dissatisfaction with a co-riparian state. Even denial of hydrological data in a critically important season can amount to the use of water as a political tool. Flash floods in recent years in two Indian frontier states – Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh – served as an ugly reminder of China’s lack of information-sharing on its upstream projects. Such leverage could in turn prompt a downstream state to build up its military capacity to help counterbalance this disadvantage.
In fact, China has been damming most international rivers flowing out of Tibet, whose fragile ecosystem is already threatened by global warming. The only rivers on which no hydro-engineering works have been undertaken so far are the Indus, whose basin falls mostly in India and Pakistan, and the Salween, which flows into Burma and Thailand. Local authorities in Yunnan province, however, are considering damming the Salween in the quake-prone upstream region.
India’s government has been pressing China for transparency, greater hydrological data-sharing, and a commitment not to redirect the natural flow of any river or diminish cross-border water flows. But even a joint expert-level mechanism – set up in 2007 merely for “interaction and cooperation” on hydrological data – has proven of little value.
The most dangerous idea China is contemplating is the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra river, known as Yarlung Tsangpo to Tibetans, but which China has renamed Yaluzangbu. It is the world’s highest river, and also one of the fastest-flowing. Diversion of the Brahmaputra’s water to the parched Yellow river is an idea that China does not discuss in public, because the project implies environmental devastation of India’s northeastern plains and eastern Bangladesh, and would thus be akin to a declaration of water war on India and Bangladesh.
Nevertheless, an officially blessed book published in 2005, Tibet’s Waters Will Save China , openly championed the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra. Moreover, the Chinese desire to divert the Brahmaputra by employing “peaceful nuclear explosions” to build an underground tunnel through the Himalayas found expression in the international negotiations in Geneva in the mid-1990s on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China sought unsuccessfully to exempt PNEs from the CTBT, a pact still not in force.
The issue now is not whether China will reroute the Brahmaputra, but when. Once authorities complete their feasibility studies and the diversion scheme begins, the project will be presented as a fait accompli . China already has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon – just before entering India – as the diversion point.
China’s ambitions to channel Tibetan waters northward have been whetted by two factors: the completion of the Three Gorges Dam, which, despite the project’s glaring environmental pitfalls, China trumpets as the greatest engineering feat since the construction of the Great Wall; and the power of President Hu Jintao, whose background fuses two key elements – water and Tibet. Hu, a hydrologist by training, owes his swift rise in the Communist Party hierarchy to the brutal martial-law crackdown he carried out in Tibet in 1989.
China’s hydro-engineering projects and plans are a reminder that Tibet is at the heart of the India-China divide. Tibet ceased to be a political buffer when China annexed it nearly six decades ago. But Tibet can still become a political bridge between China and India. For that to happen, water has to become a source of cooperation, not conflict.

New smelter mooted for India

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

State-run National Aluminium Company Limited (Nalco) on Wednesday announced its plans to set up mines and refinery project in the Andhra Pradesh and a second aluminium smelter in Orissa.

According to an official statement issued here by the Ministry of Mines, Nalco plans to spend $1.2 billion in the Andhra Pradesh project that would be located in Visakhapatnam district and Rs. 16,350 crore ($3.5 billion) in Orissa that would be located in Brajarajnagar in Jharsuguda distrct for the smelter and a captive power plant. The proposed aluminium smelter will have five lakh tonnes (500,000 tonnes) a year capacity and will be completed in two phases.

Nalco has also signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Orissa Government for setting up an aluminium park at Angul in a 50:50 joint venture with the State’s Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) at an investment of Rs. 75 crore.

The proposed aluminium park is expected to promote downstream and ancillary industries that would encourage value addition within the periphery of the plant.

India questions Chinese staff over chimney collapse

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

The following story comes from India’s Financial Times.   The accident occurred in late September, with as many as 46 workers killed.   In the weeks following the incident, sentiment against the presence of Chinese workers grew, as did the call for answers as to the cause of the accident.  

Interestingly, when trying to research this story, I found many links were blocked.    My friends in India tell me that Vedanta moved to kill the story as quickly as possible.     Of course it is embarrassing to them, but potentially more so for their Chinese contractors.   It also raises the spectre of retaliation against Chinese workers, which has been around for hundreds of years.    Apart from this episode in India, there have been reports in the Middle East and Africa, but they also go back to the 1850s in Californian and Australian gold fields.

Here is the article.

 

Indian authorities have questioned engineers from China’s Shandong Electric Power Construction Corp (Sepco) after an accident last week that killed at least 41 workers and left dozens more missing at a power plant being built for an Indian subsidiary of Vedanta, the UK-listed mining company.

About 100 labourers and engineers were working on a 330-foot power plant chimney – part of an expansion at the massive Korba complex of Bharat Aluminium Company (Balco) – when the tower collapsed last Wednesday afternoon, burying workers in the rubble.

The accident comes at a time when the Indian government is increasingly concerned about the large number of Chinese workers employed by Chinese companies operating in India, mainly as contractors to instal equipment.

About 80 Chinese citizens, including engineers and technical personnel, were working at the Balco site, though most appear to have either fled or been evacuated after the accident, amid fear of reprisals by angry locals.

Authorities this weekend issued nationwide notices to border agencies asking that the Chinese workers be prevented from leaving India until investigations are complete.

New Delhi has indicated recently that it would crack down on the large number of semi-skilled Chinese employees that it believes are working in India without the appropriate papers.

As Chinese companies gain a greater presence in Africa, south-east Asia and central Asia, they have faced rising criticism for using staff from China rather than local workers.

The collapsed chimney was part of a 1,200 megawatt power plant being constructed by China’s state-owned Sepco for Balco, which is developing an aluminium smelter at the site. The construction of the chimney itself had been subcontracted to another Indian engineering group, Gannon Dunkerly.

Sterlite Industries India, the Vedanta subsidiary that owns 51 per cent of Balco, said the collapse was apparently caused by “excessive rains and lightning”.

Chhattisgarh officials have ordered a judicial probe into the accident.

Vedanta said Balco was not responsible for the accident. An executive from Sepco, who refused to give his name but said he was responsible for dealing with the incident, told the FT: “We’re trying to understand the situation and trying to plan a response.”

Uneasy neighbours – India and China, two articles

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

Here are two articles that may interest readers.   Those of you who saw my presentation at TMS 2007 or at the Metal Bulletin conference in Miami also in 2007, may remember that this was one of the points I made then.   Regardless of any political aspect, and regardless what the people of Tibet may or may not want, China will never release Tibet from its grasp.   The first article is from Project Syndicate.

The second article comes from my friend Tony in India.    Perhaps the most salient point in this one is that it’s a common strategy for China to have two voices on subjects – the official, diplomatic one and the voice of their true feelings.

Here are the articles.

The Sino-Indian Water Divide

 

Brahma Chellaney

NEW DELHI – As China and India gain economic heft, they are drawing ever more international attention at the time of an ongoing global shift of power to Asia. Their underlying strategic dissonance and rivalry, however, usually attracts less notice.
As its power grows, China seems determined to choke off Asian competitors, a tendency reflected in its hardening stance toward India. This includes aggressive patrolling of the disputed Himalayan frontier by the People’s Liberation Army, many violations of the line of control separating the two giants, new assertiveness concerning India’s northeastern Arunachal Pradesh state – which China claims as its own – and vituperative attacks on India in the state-controlled Chinese media.
The issues that divide India and China, however, extend beyond territorial disputes. Water is becoming a key security issue in Sino-Indian relations and a potential source of enduring discord.
China and India already are water-stressed economies. The spread of irrigated farming and water-intensive industries, together with the demands of a rising middle class, have led to a severe struggle for more water. Indeed, both countries have entered an era of perennial water scarcity, which before long is likely to equal, in terms of per capita availability, the water shortages found in the Middle East.
Rapid economic growth could slow in the face of acute scarcity if demand for water continues to grow at its current frantic pace, turning China and India – both food-exporting countries – into major importers, a development that would accentuate the global food crisis.
Even though India has more arable land than China – 160.5 million hectares compared to 137.1 million hectares – Tibet is the source of most major Indian rivers. The Tibetan plateau’s vast glaciers, huge underground springs and high altitude make Tibet the world’s largest freshwater repository after the polar icecaps. Indeed, all of Asia’s major rivers, except the Ganges, originate in the Tibetan plateau. Even the Ganges’ two main tributaries flow in from Tibet.
But China is now pursuing major inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects on the Tibetan plateau, which threatens to diminish international-river flows into India and other co-riparian states. Before such hydro-engineering projects sow the seeds of water conflict, China ought to build institutionalized, cooperative river-basin arrangements with downstream states.
Upstream dams, barrages, canals, and irrigation systems can help fashion water into a political weapon that can be wielded overtly in a war, or subtly in peacetime to signal dissatisfaction with a co-riparian state. Even denial of hydrological data in a critically important season can amount to the use of water as a political tool. Flash floods in recent years in two Indian frontier states – Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh – served as an ugly reminder of China’s lack of information-sharing on its upstream projects. Such leverage could in turn prompt a downstream state to build up its military capacity to help counterbalance this disadvantage.
In fact, China has been damming most international rivers flowing out of Tibet, whose fragile ecosystem is already threatened by global warming. The only rivers on which no hydro-engineering works have been undertaken so far are the Indus, whose basin falls mostly in India and Pakistan, and the Salween, which flows into Burma and Thailand. Local authorities in Yunnan province, however, are considering damming the Salween in the quake-prone upstream region.
India’s government has been pressing China for transparency, greater hydrological data-sharing, and a commitment not to redirect the natural flow of any river or diminish cross-border water flows. But even a joint expert-level mechanism – set up in 2007 merely for “interaction and cooperation” on hydrological data – has proven of little value.
The most dangerous idea China is contemplating is the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra river, known as Yarlung Tsangpo to Tibetans, but which China has renamed Yaluzangbu. It is the world’s highest river, and also one of the fastest-flowing. Diversion of the Brahmaputra’s water to the parched Yellow river is an idea that China does not discuss in public, because the project implies environmental devastation of India’s northeastern plains and eastern Bangladesh, and would thus be akin to a declaration of water war on India and Bangladesh.
Nevertheless, an officially blessed book published in 2005, Tibet’s Waters Will Save China , openly championed the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra. Moreover, the Chinese desire to divert the Brahmaputra by employing “peaceful nuclear explosions” to build an underground tunnel through the Himalayas found expression in the international negotiations in Geneva in the mid-1990s on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China sought unsuccessfully to exempt PNEs from the CTBT, a pact still not in force.
The issue now is not whether China will reroute the Brahmaputra, but when. Once authorities complete their feasibility studies and the diversion scheme begins, the project will be presented as a fait accompli . China already has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon – just before entering India – as the diversion point.
China’s ambitions to channel Tibetan waters northward have been whetted by two factors: the completion of the Three Gorges Dam, which, despite the project’s glaring environmental pitfalls, China trumpets as the greatest engineering feat since the construction of the Great Wall; and the power of President Hu Jintao, whose background fuses two key elements – water and Tibet. Hu, a hydrologist by training, owes his swift rise in the Communist Party hierarchy to the brutal martial-law crackdown he carried out in Tibet in 1989.
China’s hydro-engineering projects and plans are a reminder that Tibet is at the heart of the India-China divide. Tibet ceased to be a political buffer when China annexed it nearly six decades ago. But Tibet can still become a political bridge between China and India. For that to happen, water has to become a source of cooperation, not conflict.  

 

 

Chinese essay sparks outcry in India

By James Lamont in New Delhi and Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: August 12 2009 18:41 | Last updated: August 12 2009 22:23

Indian academics are up in arms over what they regard as provocative incitement of the country’s demise by a Chinese essayist.

“China can dismember the so-called ‘Indian Union’ with one little move!” claimed the essay posted last week on China International Strategy Net, a patriotic website focused on strategic issues. The writer, under the pseudonym Zhanlue (strategy in Chinese), argued that India’s sense of national unity was weak and Beijing’s best option to remove an emerging rival and security threat would be to support separatist forces, like those in Assam, to bring about a collapse of the Indian federal state.

There cannot be two suns in the sky,” wrote Zhanlue. “China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously.” The article suggested that India should be divided into 20 to 30 sovereign states.

Such was the outcry about the article that the Indian government issued a statement reassuring the country that relations with China were calm.

“The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week,” the foreign ministry in New Delhi said in a statement, referring to mutual pledges to respect territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The publication of the article coincided with talks between Beijing and New Delhi over disputed Himalayan border areas. Earlier this year, China held up funding for an Asian Development Bank project in Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state claimed by China as “south Tibet”. India has also banned some Chinese imports as it tries to protect its economy from the global downturn.

Officials in Beijing and Delhi hew to rival visions of the future, each seeing themselves as pursuing the more durable political and social model of development. The presumption in New Delhi is that China’s unified, one-party state is bound to break down.

DS Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, brought the essay to his countrymen’s attention. “It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices,” he said. “Its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding during their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring venom on India in their reporting.”

China International Strategy Net is run by Kang Lingyi, who took part in hacking into US government websites in 1999 following US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Sites such as his are part of the Communist party’s strategy to allow nationalism to grow to strengthen its political legitimacy.