|
|
|
|
|
|
US-Israel Ties:HICCUPS IN HONEYMOON?, by Monish Tourangbam,25 March 2010 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 25 March 2010
US-Israel Ties
HICCUPS IN HONEYMOON?
By Monish Tourangbam
Research Scholar, School of International
Studies, JNU
The
formidable US-Israel ties presently seem to be on the rocks as a result of Israel’s decision to build 1600 Jewish homes in Ramat Shlomo in East
Jerusalem. The tension has aggravated the announcement of the new
construction plans while US Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was on a visit to Israel, thus snubbing the prospects of an American
effort to broker indirect talks between the Palestinians and Israel.
Since then, American leaders and their Israeli counterparts
have been engaged in efforts to defuse the diplomatic fallout that many
commentators see as grave and undermining the broader US-Israel ties. The US maintains
one of the most extraordinary alliances with this Middle East Jewish State, a
relationship that expands through numerous webs of inter-linkages and which is
largely seen as unshakable in its comprehensive nature. But, the current smoke
raging over the settlement issue has unleashed forces that have the potential
to at least rock the boat vigorously.
The US
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, seems to be spearheading the ire against
the recent Israeli moves and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,
seems equally adamant to prove his hawkish mettle when it comes to the issue of
enlarging Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem.
Speaking to the powerful US-based pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Secretary Clinton matched optimism and
confidence in US-Israel relations with equal skepticism over the controversial
decisions taken by the Israel
government. She made it known that it undermined the credibility of the US as a honest peace broker in the Middle East.
In
her remarks, Clinton warned that the Obama administration
would push back “unequivocally” when it disagreed with the Israeli government’s
policies. But she reaffirmed that America’s
support for Israel
was “rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever.” Earlier, she had rebuked
the Israeli Prime Minister and listed down some demands that the US hoped Israel should comply with to put
the peace process on track. During her speech at the AIPAC meet held at the
Washington Convention Centre, she defended her rebuke and displeasure over the
Israeli decision, and said that such a move jeopardized the very nature of
steps being taken to move forward on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through
American-brokered indirect talks.
Secretary
Clinton had reportedly demanded that Israel
reverse the housing plan, in the neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo; that the
Israelis avoid further provocations in Jerusalem
during coming peace talks; and that Netanyahu commit to substantive rather than
procedural negotiations with the Palestinians. As of now,
it is not very clear if the Israeli government has come anywhere close to
acceding to the demands put forth, though there are reports that Netanyahu is willing to make some
concessions.
But,
since then he has made it very clear in public that Israel would not relent where it
matters the most, the crux of the whole episode. He has reaffirmed very
categorically that there will be no change of policy on the construction of
Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu
apologized for the timing of the announcement and called it a mistake “done in
all innocence.” But he has not changed his stance a bit on Israel’s insistence on its right to continue
building in all of Jerusalem.
The
Israeli Prime Minister stated: “No government of Israel
for the last 40 years has agreed to place restrictions on building in Jerusalem,” listing every
prime minister from Levi Eshkol to Ehud Olmert. He commented
that the settlement of Jews in various suburbs of Jerusalem did not harm the Arabs of East
Jerusalem in any way. Intended as a clarification to the American government
displeased with Israeli to continue construction in East Jerusalem, the Israeli
Prime Minister opined that construction in Jerusalem is like construction in Tel Aviv.
Speaking at the AIPAC meet, Clinton tried hard to salvage some brownie points
hammering on an issue where Israel
and the US have solid common
grounds i.e. the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme and its implications in
the Middle East region and American security.
When she talked tough on stopping Iran from getting the nuclear
weapon and plans of putting what she calls sanctions that “bite”, the audience
was most receptive and supportive. “There must be no gap between the United States and Israel on security,” she said to
loud applause.
But, the tension and the fractures
in US-Israel relations became evident when she passed curt remarks and exuded
skepticism of the present Israeli policy towards new settlements. Without
mincing any words, she opined that the
status-quo in the region was not fruitful and was seriously jeopardizing any
prospect of going forward with the impending peace talks between the
Palestinians and the Israelis. Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador
to Israel, said Clinton’s
speech reaffirmed the strategic importance of the US-Israel relationship while
not backing down on settlements.
She
went ahead to praise Netanyahu for his 10-month moratorium on the building of
settlements in the West Bank (Jerusalem
had been excluded from it), and for backing a two-State solution. While
condemning those who incite violence against Israel, she also defended the need
to speak out against any decision that might endanger the peace process. “As Israel’s friend,” she said, “it is
our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it
is needed.”
The
comments doing the rounds is that the Clinton speech has calmed the boiling
waters to some extent for the time being but the differences over the
settlement are still brewing and fingers are being crossed on both sides as to
what lies ahead. Even Israel's
ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren was of the opinion that the US
and Israel were facing the most serious case of difference since a
confrontation between Henry Kissinger and Yitzhak Rabin in 1975 over an
American demand for a partial withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.
The US has demanded Israel to stop or restrict expansion of Jewish
settlements in East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank,
pending final status negotiations with the Palestinians. On the other hand, the
Israeli government seems unrelenting on the issue of settlement in East Jerusalem. Israel
had annexed East Jerusalem from Jordan
in the 1967 six-day war and since claimed sovereignty over it, thus seriously
complicating the issue as the Palestinians claim it as the capital of its future
State. Jerusalem
is at the centre of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis.
As such, it is obvious that the most vicious disagreements will come over
this issue. The US-Israel alliance is passing though a rough storm, but at the
same time the alliance is time-proven and crisis-proven, cemented over the
years through numerous deep-seated defence, strategic, economic and
socio-cultural linkages. The coming days will unravel more questions on this
alliance and the corresponding answers will come forth providing more insight
into the nature of this formidable yet controversial relationship.--INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Putin’s Visit:DIVERSIFYING INDIA-RUSSIA TIES,by Monish Tourangbam,17 March 2010 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 17 March 2010
Putin’s Visit
DIVERSIFYING INDIA-RUSSIA TIES
By Monish Tourangbam
Research Scholar, School of International
Studies, JNU
India and Russia share a wide range of mutual
convergences and the influential Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin symbolizes
the upward trend in the bilateral ties between the two nations in the post-Cold
War era. During the cold war, India
maintained a fairly good rapport with erstwhile Soviet
Union amidst the geostrategic virtual divisions of the world. In
the game of great power rivalry, New Delhi tried
to maintain its non-aligned nature while managing ties with both the USSR and the United States.
But after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Cold War came to an end and world politics
went through a whirlwind of changes. In the altered circumstances, India has
painted a different picture of itself: a vibrant and rapidly growing economy
with one of the most enviable markets in the world, thanks to the
liberalization of its economy. Today, when countries are interlinked in
different areas of engagement, the challenge is to keep oiling the ties,
keeping intact the mutuality of interest and more so the economic viability of the
relationships.
The presidential years of Prime
Minister Putin has been largely credited with bringing back Russia into the reckoning
in world politics using its energy resource as a major driving force of
economic resurgence and hence a corresponding rise in strategic and political
clout. Putin as the then president of the Russian Federation was also
responsible for opening a new chapter in India-Russia ties considering the
changes and continuities.
Though the US still holds
sway in today’s world in terms of its superior military, the world is very
different from either being bipolar or unipolar. In fact, it now resembles more
of a multi-polar world in which every relationship should be considered at its
own merit and differences should be worked out through diplomacy and not
through cowboy-style duels.
The leadership in both India and Russia, despite some occasional
hiccups has been able to keep the relationship sailing. The recent visit of Putin is credible in increasing the pace and
regularity of communication between the two countries, coming after the successful
Moscow visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh late last year. Putin’s itinerary
was strictly business and intended to carry forward official discussions on
many of the projects and understandings reached during Singh’s visit.
While, new ventures were initiated
and a host of other issues came in for serious consideration, the focus was on
cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy and defence trade. The high point of Singh's
visit was sealing a broad-based civilian nuclear agreement. The civilian
nuclear deal with Russia
goes beyond one signed with the US
in some crucial aspects. Accordingly, Russia
and New Delhi
will have reprocessing and enrichment rights. Moreover, no ongoing nuclear
power project or uranium fuel supply arrangement with Russia would be
affected or stopped in the event of termination of bilateral cooperation for
any reason. On the other hand, the Indo-US nuclear deal talks of termination of
ongoing cooperation and the return of US supplied components and fuel in the
event of the termination of agreement.
During Putin’s two-day visit, five agreements were inked
between the two sides --two each in the nuclear sphere and fertilizers and one
in the civilian space segment, besides many other in the sidelines that will
significantly boost bilateral ties. The signing of the umbrella nuclear
agreement sealed during Singh’s Moscow
visit and decisions to expand cooperation in the development of civilian
nuclear energy reactors would importantly enhance the ties in research and
design.
India’s public sector nuclear enterprise
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Russia’s
Atomstroy Export signed a separate commercial contract to build more nuclear
reactors of 1,000 MW each at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu. Sites for Russian
reactors were also allocated at Haripur in West Bengal.
Moreover, the goal, according to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), is for
progressive indigenization of the nuclear reactors to be built in India with
Russian collaboration.
The Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) waiver to India has
opened the doors of nuclear commerce. The Bush Administration should be
complemented for significantly improving India's prospects for getting the
NSG-waiver. This vindicates the argument that engagements with different
countries at different levels open up opportunities at other corridors, thus
amplifying the importance of maintaining ties at their own merit. According to
Putin, nuclear cooperation will go beyond mere building of reactors and
supplying fuel to include waste disposal. He assured that the Russian reactors
would be incorporated with latest safety measures, at the same adding that New Delhi was expected to
put orders of up to a dozen reactors which could enable their supply at
affordable rates.
The Inter-Government Agreement on Cooperation in the use of atomic
energy for peaceful purpose signed during the visit envisaged the possibility
of setting up a nuclear fuel facility in India. New
Delhi has also agreed to consider the Russian offer to participate
in an international nuclear fuel enrichment centre at Angarsk,
Siberia.
However,
a thorny issue in the Indo-Russian relationship that has often threatened mar
an otherwise progressive course has been the Gorshkov pricing issue. While Singh’s
visit had reportedly managed to achieve a thaw in the issue, Putin’s visit
managed to finally seal the price of the re-fitted Soviet-era aircraft. The
cancellation of the deal would not have severely derailed the comprehensive
ties but such an outcome would have dented the reliability of the robust
defense cooperation.
The
sealing of the long-delayed renegotiated deal for Admiral Gorshkov,
rechristened INS Vikramaditya, has removed an irritant in bilateral ties. This
apart, 14 supplementary agreements were signed for finalization of cost and
other technical aspects of the carrier. Despite India
diversifying its source of defence purchases and new players giving
competition, Russia
continues to be the largest supplier of military hardware to India.
Besides
the burgeoning defence trade, a conventional area of Indo-Russian cooperation,
broader economic ties are not matching the potential. Major initiatives have
been taken with a vision to close these gaps and harness potential to the
optimum level. As such, pacts were signed on oil exploration, trade in diamonds
and import of fertilizers.
Widening
the horizons of high-tech cooperation, the Indian Space Research Organization
(ISRO) and the Russian space agency inked a pact on civilian application of the
Russia Glonass (the Global Navigation Satellite System), the Russian equivalent
of the US Global Positioning System. Pacts were signed to further intensify
trade in the aviation sector, and IT and telecommunications were identified as
major areas of focus to substantially increase the bilateral economic ties.
India-Russia
ties ended on a good note last year and have started on a good note this year,
as both sides welcome a free flow of timely discussion on a host of issues. Indeed,
Putin’s visit both intensified and diversified the relationship, cementing the
existing ties and building new vistas of cooperation. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
.
|
|
Rao’s Lanka Visit:TIMELY, LENDS A HAND,by Monish Tourangbam,9 March 2010 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 9 March 2010
Rao’s Lanka Visit
TIMELY, LENDS A HAND
By Monish Tourangbam
Research Scholar, School of International
Studies, JNU
It has been stated more than often
that it is much more difficult to win peace than a war, more so to sustain
peace. This statement is truer every time it is made. As the neighboring island
nation of Sri Lanka walks,
stumbles and walks towards a political solution and reconciliation, India can use its good offices and diplomatic
sources to help the Colombo
government. It can help the Rajapaksa administration in walking that extra mile
to resolve the grievances of the ethnic Tamil minority and usher in a new Sri Lanka that
would not sow the seeds of a new Prabhakaran and a new LTTE help again.
Though President Mahinda Rajapkasa
came back to power in a very controversial presidential election early this
year, the Manmohan Singh administration has taken the right diplomatic step in
recognizing his administration as the legitimate decision-maker on whose
shoulder the future of the fragile nation lies. Validating the presidency of
Rajapaksa puts him in the centre of the reconciliation process and the onus is
now on him to deliver on the promises he had made. In this context, the recent
visit of the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao came at an opportune time,
when India’s
diplomatic stance and material assistance were made known to the nation,
grappling with the regeneration of the Tamil-populated regions.
The international community raised
serious questions on how the Rajapaksa administration handled the offensive
against the LTTE. Now, it sets its eyes on how the President goes about the
resettlement of the displaced Tamils and delivers on his electoral mandate of
bringing about a unified Sri
Lanka. The poll statistics during the
presidential election did not really reflect any favorable change of Tamil
attitude towards the Rajapaksa administration. The ethnic divide looked more
emphasized and the opinions fractured and cynical.
The symptoms of the disease that the
new administration has to grapple with are right there for all to see in the
form of the mandate provided to the new government. The challenger General
Fonseka won in the north and the east, largely dominated by the Tamils and
Tamil-speaking Muslims. As such, the challenges in front of the president,
whose popularity among the Sinhalese is undoubted, is immense.
At this juncture, the international
community will also take note of the diplomatic signals sent out by the Indian
government, concerning the Sri Lankan peace process. Nirupama Rao’s visit was
meant to hold discussions with her counterpart on a wide range of issues of
mutual interest and to assess as to how New
Delhi can assist in their efforts to bring stability
and re-instill confidence in the ethnic minority. Her visit also assumes
significance keeping in view that she has been closely acquainted with the
island nation, having served as the High Commissioner for India in Sri Lanka from 2004-2006.
The Sri Lankans are indeed at a critical
juncture of their history. After being ravaged by civil wars for years, cutting
short any chances of reintegration and regeneration of the society as a whole,
they have a second chance and should be a step ahead of the situation. After
the end of the storm, they have a unique opportunity to rebuild the society and
assuage the grievances and misunderstanding that gave birth to the storm in the
first place.
Congratulating Rajapkasa on his
electoral victory, Rao welcomed the relaxation of
movement restrictions on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), and also
expressed the hope that the resettlement process could be expedited, especially
in Killinochchi and Mullaithivu, so that the IDPs could resume normal lives in
their original places of habitation. President Rajapaksa had mentioned that
around 70,000 IDPs remained in the camps, many of their own volition.
Rao also commented favourably
on the prospect of the forthcoming general election in Sri Lanka. India’s assistance towards rehabilitation and
reconstruction of the Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka and for the resettlement
of the IDPs was highly appreciated, particularly the extension of US$ 425 million as Lines of Credit
for railway projects in Northern Sri Lanka.
According to the Ministry of
External Affairs, the importance of the October 2008
Joint Statement of Fishing Arrangements was reiterated and it was agreed to
convene a meeting of the Joint Working Group on Fishing to discuss issues
related to fishermen on both sides. Rao also announced New
Delhi’s support for housing projects to be taken up in the
Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts for the benefit of the IDPs and its decision
to supply 55 buses for various educational, social and cultural organizations
and locally elected bodies in northern, eastern and central Sri Lanka, to
facilitate transportation and connectivity.
Various joint projects
in the important areas of cultural engagement and shared cultural heritage were
announced including the setting up of the International
Buddhist Museum
in the Dalada Maligawa Complex and the restoration of the famous Thiruketheshwaram Temple in Mannar. A onetime grant of
Indian Rs. 15 million was announced to the corpus of the India-Sri Lanka
Foundation engaged in crucial areas of art, culture, education, human resource
development, training, etc.
The Foreign Secretary also inaugurated the Sri Lanka-India Centre
for English Language Training in Peradeniya, Kandy. The Centre has been set up with the
assistance of the Government of India in collaboration with the well-known
English and Foreign Languages University,
Hyderabad and
is meant to support the Sri Lankan Presidential Initiative for English as a life
skill.
New Delhi also intends to open a Consulate
General in Jaffna
and the Government of Sri Lanka has agreed to the proposal. While Sri Lanka has three consulate offices - Chennai,
Mumbai and Kolkata, India
has only one consulate office located in Kandy.
According to officials the modalities on setting up of the Jaffna Consulate are
to be worked out and the basic objective behind the move is to cater to the
needs of the people of the peninsula. “It would help India strengthen the
cultural links between the Northern Province in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu
besides making it easier for the people to obtain visa to travel to India”, a
senior official said.
Rao was successful in communicating India’s concern for the critical yet hopeful
situation in neighbouring Sri
Lanka. She made it known to Colombo that New
Delhi’s assistance towards the reconstruction and rehabilitation process would
always be forthcoming. India’s symbolic gestures, diplomatic assistance and
material support assume equal importance in its policy towards the island
nation.
Indian policy towards the Sri Lankan situation should serve
as a reminder of New Delhi’s non-aggressive nature of policy-making towards
smaller countries in the South Asian region and beyond. As a result of India’s
overwhelming cultural, geographical and economic presence in the region, the
‘big brother syndrome’ to a large extent affects how smaller nations look at its
policies. As such, India should do the extra bit to allay fears and suspicions
on the part of these countries.--- INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
PM’s Saudi Visit:EXPANDING HORIZONS, OILING TIES,by Monish Tourangbam,3 March 2010 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 3 March 2010
PM’s Saudi Visit
EXPANDING HORIZONS,
OILING TIES
By Monish Tourangbam,
Research Scholar, School of International
Studies, JNU
The recent three-day visit by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia
can be assessed as a pragmatic step towards cementing international
partnerships. The visit assumes importance in view of the developing situation
in Afghanistan
and the emerging dynamics in the trajectory of India-Pakistan relations. Singh’s
visit is geared towards putting an end to speculation that the relations with
the West Asian kingdom have been kept in the cold-storage. Singh resumed the State
visit by becoming the third Prime Minister to visit Saudi Arabia since Jawaharlal Nehru
in 1955 and India Gandhi in 1982.
A rapidly growing economy like India accords
much importance to this relationship in terms of the dividends that it will
help bring to meet the country’s energy consumption.
The
red-carpet that rolled out in honour of the Singh is symptomatic of the kind of
relationship that the oil-rich kingdom wants to work on with India. The ties
are mutual for if India needs Saudi Arabia to meets its energy consumption, the
former too assumes importance in view of the its enviable market and the
expertise that it can provide on various developmental fronts. One of the
highpoints of the visit was the signing of the Riyadh Declaration between Singh
and Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz. The declaration aims to cement ties and
to raise bilateral cooperation to a strategic partnership covering security,
economic, defence and political areas.
The
occasion served the purpose of reviewing the status of implementation of the historic
Delhi Declaration signed in 2006 during the significant visit of the Saudi king
as the chief guest on the Republic Day celebrations. The one-day visit of Saudi
foreign minister Prince Saud Al Faisal in December 2008 to convey his country’s
condemnation of the terror attack in Mumbai
was a welcome gesture that should not be ignored.
In
the post Cold-War scenario, power dynamics has been changing significantly in
the international system and different regions around the world. As such, many
countries including India
and Saudi Arabia
got engaged with coming to terms with the changed environment. But, the
post-Cold War period also ushered in the liberalization of the Indian economy,
leading to a changed perspective as far as investment opportunities in the
country were concerned. Its rapid growth as one of the most important economies
and markets in the world has inevitably brought in new needs and emerging
opportunities.
A
pragmatic and well-oiled relationship with Saudi Arabia assumes importance
from the strategic, economic as well as the cultural point of view. Despite being
a Hindu-majority state, India
is home to a sizeable Muslim minority. The Saudi king being the custodian of
the two Holy Mosques (Al-Masjid
al-Ḥarām of Mecca and Al-Masjid al-Nabawi of Medina) attains a
revered position in the Islamic world. Moreover, India in the present international
system while diversifying its energy sources needs to cement its linkages with
its traditional suppliers. In this context, ties with Saudi Arabia,
the biggest oil exporter of the world cannot be jeopardized.
Thus, the recent visit by the Prime Minister has
successfully managed to emphasize the importance to keep the channels of
communication active with frequent visits of dignitaries. The camaraderie
shared between the leaders from both the sides provides a perfect springboard
for taking the relations to the next strategic level. The kingdom
of Saudi Arabia is the biggest crude
oil supplier to India
and efforts are targeted to taking the ties beyond the buyer-seller
relationship to what is being termed as comprehensive energy partnership.
According to sources, Saudi Arabia agreed to raise the crude supply to
India
from 25.5 million tonnes a year to 40 million tones. Addressing the Council of
Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Singh had commented that Indian
companies were well-equipped to participate in the upstream and downstream oil
and gas sector projects in Saudi
Arabia and focused on the need for new
partnerships in the area of new and renewable energy, sharing clean
technologies and joint collaboration.
India-Saudi
Arabia bilateral trade reached almost $25 billion in 2008-09 and Indian
investments there now stand at more than $2 billion covering over 500 joint
ventures. RITES, a Government of India
Enterprise, has also won a contract to participate in the North-South
Railway project, an ambitious plan to connect some of the most inhospitable
terrain in Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia’s
national oil company) is reportedly setting up a procurement office in India worth an
estimated $400 million. India
reportedly is seeking to increase supply for three refinery projects at
Paradip, Bhatinda and Bina.
The
three new plants -- Indian Oil Corp.’s Paradip refinery in the eastern State of
Orissa, Hindustan Petroleum Corp.’s unit at Bhatinda in northern Punjab and
Bharat Petroleum Corp.’s Bina plant in central Madhya Pradesh -- will increase
India’s refining capacity of 178 million tonnes a year by almost 20 per cent by
the end of 2012. Saudi Arabia, also home to around 1.8 million Indian workforce
provides huge foreign remittances.
New
Delhi has also spoken of its willingness to share its expertise in the area of
knowledge-based industries and human resource development. Indicative of the
emphasis put on diversifying bilateral ties beyond the oil-sector, various agreements
were signed in the areas of extradition, transfer of sentenced prisoners,
scientific and technological cooperation, peaceful use of outer space,
information sharing and Press exchanges, information technology, cultural
exchange and advanced computing services.
Apart from the economics of the
visit, the importance accorded to each other by the two countries should assume
significance in view of the strategic and security challenges faced by India in
the region. The close connection between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is
unquestionable and the kingdom also has stake in the developing scenario in
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Evolving situations in the region demands efforts
from New Delhi to extend its linkages and cement existing ties with friendly
countries such as Saudi Arabia. The
recent attacks in Afghanistan have raised serious questions over the safety of
Indians engaged in reconstruction and relief efforts in the war-country. A
pattern is developing where India is increasingly being targeted for the
contribution to the Afghan reconstruction, while talks of reconciling the
illusionary “Good Taliban” are being flouted.
Further, India-Pakistan talks are at
a crucial stage after a lull post the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The talks might
have not have achieved much in concrete terms but the fact that the two sides
could sit and negotiate over the table after more than a year is an initiation
to be built upon. In the context of these engagements and developments in the
region, India-Saudi Arabia relations need to be given importance and the recent
visit, even if late, has come at an opportune time. India, in its present
position, needs to expand its horizon of engagements and work on the shared
interest with different countries to develop long-term mutuality of purpose and
avoid ad-hoc policies.—INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
.
|
|
Dalai Lama’s Visit:US-CHINA TIES UNAFFECTED,by Monish Tourangbam,23 February 2010 |
|
|
Round The World
New
Delhi, 23 February 2010
Dalai Lama’s Visit
US-CHINA TIES UNAFFECTED
By Monish Tourangbam
Research Scholar, School of International
Studies, JNU
Recently, there have been more than
adequate media spotlight on the strained relationship between the United States and China. The two countries have been
sparring on various issues, ranging from internet censorship, human rights, US arms sale to Taiwan and over the contentious
issue of currency rates. President’s Barack Obama’s visit to Beijing last year created much bonhomie,
giving some sleepless nights to Indian strategic circles. But the difference of
perspectives and policy that surround Sino-American relations are here to stay.
Apart from the aforementioned
issues, the US and China have
serious differences over the diffusion of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear
issue. Now, add to this the US President’s recent meeting with the Tibetan
exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama and we have a picture-perfect recipe
highlighting the cracks widening in US-China relations.
Though America
does not refute that Tibet
is a part of China,
it nevertheless supports the integrity and ethos of the non-violent and
pro-democracy struggle being led by the Dalai Lama. But, the Chinese government
on the other hand, sees the Dalai Lama, as a trouble-maker and a separatist
leader ought to negate China’s
sovereignty and split its unity. As such, Beijing
has been very categorical and adamant in objecting to any US President
meeting the Tibetan leader. It regards it as an official support to the Tibetan
separatist movement and has time and again threatened that such a gesture would
be seen as directed against the sovereignty of China and would invite serious
repercussions.
Now, the big question is: Would the meeting
between President Obama and the Dalai Lama necessarily destabilize US-China
relations? The answer: “Not really”. Chinese outrages against any American
overture towards the Tibetan leader and corresponding American denial of
Chinese threats and pressures has become too characteristic of the bilateral
relationship. President Obama knew that a meeting with the Dalai Lama is an
important menu in the itinerary of America’s commitment to human right
issues.
He has already procrastinated on the
quite imminent meeting. Ahead of his last year visit to China; the US President had reportedly
persuaded Tibetan representatives then to postpone the meeting with the Dalai
Lama. This time around, Obama exactly knew what he was up to. The reaction was
swift with the Chinese Foreign Ministry saying, “The US act
grossly violated the norms governing international relations.” According to the
Chinese government, the meeting contradicted US commitments to recognize China’s sovereignty over Tibet and
refrain from supporting separatist forces. But these allegations are not new. The Dalai Lama has met with every US president
since George H.W. Bush in 1991 and these meetings attracted
ire from the Chinese government.
So, there is no reason to expect
that the recent niceties provided to the Dalai Lama by the Obama Administration
are going to seriously rock the boat of Sino-American bilateral relations. It
is true that the controversy has come at a wrong time when the relationship is
already strained over a number of issues, but then US-China relations have
never been easy, and not very friendly either. The relationship can rather be
characterized as a marriage of convenience and has withstood a number of more
volatile differences.
The symbolic welcome and respect
given to the preservation of Tibet’s
cultural identity and the protection of their human rights cannot, in practical
estimates, derail the highly entrenched US-China relations. Talking of
estimates and statistics, the economic linkages is tightly knit by $366 billion
worth of mutual trade and $755 billion in Chinese-held US Treasury bills. As
such, the rhetoric and aggressive statements have become routine fodder given
to the media and stand no chances of drastically impacting the course of the
relationship. In fact, the absence of such aggression from the Chinese
government and the failure of the US government to bypass them would make
them look out of character.
The Obama administration has had a
tough time dealing with the Chinese side, especially after the US plan to sell arms worth $ 6.4 billion to Taiwan and China’s rebuff of President Obama’s
call to strengthen the Chinese currency. The US establishment was quite aware
and cautious of what was in store after the Dalai Lama-Obama meeting and as
such, the whole programme was designed to tone down the official significance
of the proceedings, and lend a more casual feel. The US President met with the Tibetan
spiritual leader in the Map Room, which is part of the residence at the White
House, and not in the Oval Office. The economics of the US-China relationship
has always overshadowed all other issues and the near future will be no
different.
American responses to human rights
violations in the Chinese mainland have been lukewarm at best, and have never
really threatened to jeopardize the larger political and economic linkages. The
Tibetan spiritual leader seemed content after the meeting and commented that he
wasn’t frustrated about the pace of progress for autonomy in Tibet. Asked
how Obama can help Tibet,
the Dalai Lama said, “time will tell.”Many analysts are of the opinion that the
bilateral ties will sustain the current differences.
It is worthwhile remembering that
amid all the ticklish issues that now surround the relationship, the
USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other U.S. warships recently anchored in
Hong Kong, where more than 5,000 sailors will get shore leave. In 2007, China had
prevented the USS Kitty Hawk from visiting the city, showing Chinese
displeasure at President George W. Bush meeting the Dalai Lama and presenting
him with the Congressional Gold Medal. Although Beijing belatedly approved the
port-call, the fleet had already turned back. The point is that both the
countries cannot afford to lose the track and jeopardize the economic symbiosis
that exists.
According
to Douglas Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “U.S. exports are zooming to China.
It's the largest export market for the U.S. -- largest growing export market
for the U.S. It grew 65 per cent this past year alone." In spite of
disagreements about the Dalai Lama and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, neither China
nor the US, Paal says, can afford a major falling out. As per a recently-conducted
national CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, nearly three-quarters of all
Americans think Tibet should be an independent country. But at the same time,
the poll indicates that most Americans think it is more important to maintain
good relations with China than to take a stand on Tibet.
Visits
of the Dalai Lama are always under the Chinese government’s scanner and they
have a perpetual displeasure towards other countries receiving the exiled
leader. Though, any reception given to the Dalai Lama often ignites heated
diplomatic rhetoric, it has seldom led to the Chinese government jeopardizing
its economic interest. In the final analysis, it is business as usual in US-China
relations and one should not read too much into the implications of President
Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama. The diplomatic rhetoric and the heated
exchange of statements are rather routine affair to keep dissenting voices in
control.—INFA
(Copyright, India News and
Feature Alliance)
|
|
|
More...
-
India-Pakistan Talks:BATTLE IT OUT ON TABLE, NOT BORDER, by Monish Tourangbam,16 February 2010
-
Rajapaksa Victory:TIME TO WIN PEACE, RECONCILIATION,by Monish Tourangbam,2 February 2010
-
US Defence Secy’s Visit:CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MISSION,by Monish Tourangbam,27 January 2010
-
Sheikh Hasina’s Visit:MENDING INDIA-BANGLADESH TIES, by onish Tourangbam, 20 January 2010
| << Start < Previous 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 Next > End >>
| Results 4600 - 4608 of 6004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|