'The “String of Pearls” refers to the Chinese sea lines of
communication which extends for over from the coast of mainland China to
the Port of Sudan.
The term was first used in 2004 in a classified internal report to
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld titled “Energy Futures in Asia”
which was produced by defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. The report
which was leaked to the public by the Washington Times, stated that
China is adopting a “string of pearls” strategy of bases and diplomatic
ties stretching from the Middle East to southern China.
“China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from
the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive
and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interest, but also
to serve broad security objectives” [1] .
The “String of Pearls” is also described by Lieutenant Colonel
Christopher J. Pehrson in his study String Of Pearls: Meeting The
Challenge Of China’s Rising Power Across The Asian Littoral'
The above is quoted from UKessay.com.
This concept was first mooted by the Americans to describe the Chinese strategic plan to overcome the American plan to choke off Chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean through the Malacca Straits. The Americans have been carefully developing all the choke points along the Indian Ocean and the control of the Straits of Malacca and could cut off Chinese supply of oil from the Middle East by controlling these waterways.
China is the largest trading nation today and is heavily dependent on the sea lanes for its oil supply and to export its goods to the Middle East and Africa. The American control of the sea lanes is a serious military and economic stranglehold on Chinese shipping and could cripple China in the event of hostility with the Americans. It is in China's interest to secure the sea lanes and develop alternatives to move its goods/oil to and from the Chinese mainland. Developing ports in the Indian Oceans, in Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar is a matter of life and death to China.
The building of these port facilities is mainly to counter the Americans and has barely any direct consideration of controlling and competing with India. Similarly, the BRI, the development of rail and roads across the Central Asia to Europe has the same strategic considerations, to provide alternatives in case the sea lanes are blocked by the Americans.
For some egoistic reasons, the Indians chose to take this American concept as a direct challenge to their dominance in the Indian Ocean and sought to erect all kinds of barriers and resistance to the Chinese activities including refusing to be a part of the BRI. China's inclusion of a highway through the India subcontinent is the best proof of Chinese intention to bridge Asia and Africa for trade and communication and not to contain India in a strategic competition. India in all consideration is inconsequential to China's strategic thinking. The enemy of China is the Americans, not India. India and China could coexist and grow and prosper together by having more trading and economic relations. China does not harbour any ill intent to challenge or invade India. It is unnecessary and meaningless to do so for China.
Unfortunately this egoistic India, thinking too highly of itself as the next superpower, chose to interpret every Chinese action as aiming at India. And thanks to the fanning of the Indian ego by the Americans, they exploited this Indian weakness to drive a wedge between India and China, pitting India as a competitor to China and China's rise as India's fall. The string of pearl concept falls in nicely into the ambitious thinking of the Indian planners. They must oppose the string of pearls that China is developing in the Indian Ocean as a plan against India, not against the Americans. The Indians also include the BRI as against the interest of India as it promotes the interest of China.
Sino India relations thus keep going downhill with the Indians becoming suspicious of every China initiative north and south of India. India thus chose to continue to remain a slum country, refuse to join the BRI and prosper together with the rest of Asia by becoming part of this international trade road initiative. If Indian thinkers were more forward thinking than being consumed by their wild ambition of being better than China, instead of both developing together but seeing China's development as a threat to this backward country, India today could rebuild its infrastructure to mirror what is happening in China with Chinese assistance and cooperation to better the lives of Indians and at the same time push India faster into the ranks of developed nations.
But small minds would not see goodness in all the developments around them and chose to bury its heads in the sand, thriving in a mentality of enmity against cooperation with both parties moving ahead together.
At the rate India is going, on its own, with the Americans only able to sell it more weapons, its economic and infrastructure development would only be on a standstill and its big power dream only a fleeting dream. The only country that is very happy with this development is the USA, with India as one of its pawn and wasting precious little resources buying useless American weapons at the expense of its economic development and the well being and prosperity of its people.
India can continue to live in its imaginary fear of China that historically had not invaded any Indian territory and neither has any ambition to want to seize any Indian land. India can also continue to believe in its own lie that the 1962 border war was initiated by China to seize disputed territory despite China defeating India and withdrew to the original LOC. If China wanted to take advantage of the war, China could simply sat on the new land that it occupied after the war. This act of generosity did not sink into the heads of the egoistic Indians till today. The pride of the Indians would not allow them to admit their guilt, and chose to believe in their make belief, their own lie, that China was the invader and not India. Why would China want to invade a slum country and inherit all its problems?
It is so pathetic that India, despite having so many brilliant minds, could not face reality squarely and chose to continue to live in their own lies and myth of China. The string of pearl and the BRI are parts of China's strategy to break free from the American fence built to contain China, nothing to do with India. India should not think too highly of itself, its self importance that these are to contain India.
This white man wanted to beat up a Chinese in the street of USA because of the colour of his skin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFHWRG6YOd0
Watch his 9 minute clip on lynching blacks in the USA. Listen to Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.
Rand Paul wanted to amend the anti lynching bill to disregard a lynching if it ended only in scratches or bruises, not death or the victim's gut been cut open to drag out the unborn child.
Local playwright Alfian Sa’at has expressed revulsion at a photo of
Raffles Institution (RI) donning blackface and mocking their schoolmate
for his complexion. Mr Alfian, who is perhaps most well-known for his
plays ‘Cooling Off Day’ and ‘Cook a Pot of Curry’, is an RI alumnus
himself.
The group blackface photo, which was taken in 2016, shows a student
who is believed to be of Sri Lankan descent squatting in front of a
paper bag that bears his name and the words “whitening kit”. About 10
schoolmates wearing black facial masks can be seen surrounding him,
holding various items like a bottle of Nivea whitening lotion,
deodorant, fake cash and a photo shopped poster of the movie Slumdog
Millionaire.
Above was posted in www.theindependent.sg.
George Floyd and many black Americans and coloured people were victims of extreme racism in the USA and some European countries, including UK, France and Australia. Racism in these countries are very real and can cost lives or being beaten up, not just for fun. They don't poke fun at the colour of a person's skin, but will beat up the person or abuse and kill him/her.
In Singapore we often heard of racism being used when things like the above photo is shown. A fancy dress nite at a Dinner and Dance when participants put up brown faces was also attacked as racism. A promotional ad when a person of a different race dressed up as different races was also deemed as racism. I can understand the sensitivity of people who perceived that their colour has become the brunt of a joke. But in many of these cases in Singapore, racism was the furthest in the thoughts of the people involved, like the photo above. Many of the Chinese Singaporeans are oblivious of race. To them they have no race except a nationality, Singaporean. They have accepted the four official racial groups as part and parcel of life here and never think anything more than to it.
Look at the above photo again. These are young innocent youths were just having a little fun among themselves. Racism was the furthest thing in their minds. There was no intent to hurt, to belittle their friend or to be racist. To flag this up as racism is going a bit too far. It is mischief. Do not be consumed by fakery and false accusation. Racism is hate, intentional hate. There must be the element of intent to be labelled as racism. Grow up.
Many of the young Chinese here do not identify themselves as Chinese. They have no race in their vocabulary or in their lives. They only see themselves as Singaporeans. How can such people with no race be racist? Please do not demonise these youths as racists. Using whitening cream is not racist. Women of all colours use them. Many Chinese women use them to be fairer in the name of vanity.
While we should be sensitive to the feelings of the minorities, the minorities must also be sensitive to the majority and should not abuse the race label to smear or attack the majority when there was no intent to be racist or to cause hurt. Does anyone hear the statement, 'Black is beautiful'? Would the blacks be offended by this term? They coined it themselves.
Every colour is beautiful in its own way. Every colour is ugly when the intent is mischievous. Yellow has also been used as a racist term against the Chinese. But the Chinese would not react every time the word yellow is used. Everyone should be proud of his own ethnic and racial identity and colour. One should only be offended when there is intent to offend by referring to one's ethnicity, culture, religion or colour in acrimonious ways.
It is equally dangerous to live in a society where there is intolerance and people screaming racism at the slightest reference to race and colour. Often the people screaming racism are the real racists themselves and playing victims to attract attention. If the slightest reference to colour is offensive, then no one should be allowed to mention black, brown, yellow, white or use such colours to represent anything in life as they are offensive to sensitive people.
Be sensitive yes, but it is equally important to note the intent. Colour is about everything in life. Colour makes life interesting and provides varieties for expression. Colour itself is never meant to be offensive. It is only offensive when a mischievous person is using it with the intent to hurt. Stop being ultra sensitive when it is unnecessary and unintentional. Face racism when it is real and speak up against it. Do not misuse or abuse the term racism as a weapon to stir shit.
PS. If one does not understand the meaning of racism, look at the USA, Australia, look at Malaysia and Indonesia, where one can be beaten up or killed because of the colour of his skin, where racism is institutionalised, sanctioned by law in govt policies. Do not go and pick on the young having a little fun among themselves and called that racism. It is irresponsible and dangerous.
