|
No 268 Vol XXV Not To Be Published Before 28 November 2006
POLITICAL DIARY
Talking To Inscrutable Chinese
TRUST-ME-TRUST-ME-NOT PLAGUES TIES
By Poonam I Kaushish
Trust-me-trust-me-not. This
question continues to plague Sino-Indian ties. The much-hyped four-day visit of
Chinese President Hu Jintao to India
last week, after a decade, has changed nothing. The mistrust goes beyond the
old enmity syndrome. Compounded by the ever-changing dynamics of living in a
unipolar world --- strategically, politically and economically. Which speaks
volumes for the Sino-Indian year of friendship 2006. Of two Asian neighbours
who have yet to thaw the chill in their Hindi-Chini
bhai-bhai ism!
The "body language" said
it all. The business-like visit, lacked personal warmth. True, during the
100-minute Manmohan Singh-Hu Jintao talks (15 minutes were one-on-one) both
went down memory lane and stressed that positive developments in Sino-Indian
ties "must be made irreversible". In all 13 agreements were signed,
including opening of a Chinese Consulate in Kolkata and an Indian one in Guangzhou. A 10-pronged
strategy to intensify cooperation and enhance strategic ties was agreed upon. Stress
was laid on raising the volume of bilateral trade to $40 billion by 2010. All
gung-ho about moving forward.
But memories don’t add up to good
politics. If the truth be told, the so-called “historic and successful” visit
(aren’t all visits hailed as such) was anything but successful from India’s
point of view. New Delhi
played into the Chinese hands, thanks to its poor tactics, and allowed itself
to be outmanoeuvered. It ceded to Beijing’s
request to dispense with the customary question-answer session at the Press
meet of the two leaders. Thus, losing a good opportunity to put Beijing on the mat and
find out in unequivocal terms its position on the highly contentious issue of
border dispute.
Specially against the backdrop of
the Chinese Ambassador to New Delhi, Sun Yuxi’s recent TV interview, claiming
“the whole of Arunachal Pradesh including Tawang as Chinese territory” and demanding
that India agree to "mutual compromises" and "some give and
take" in relation to that State. Instead of using his visit to clear the
air, President Hu compounded matters further. Calling for an early settlement, he
averred that it was in the fundamental
interest of the two countries. Further, the political parameters and guiding
principles should be pursued as a "strategic goal". Never mind that
the issue has been under discussion since 2003 by special representatives of
the two countries who have held eight rounds of talks so far.
The two countries have shared a
knotty, long-standing border dispute. While New Delhi
claims that China is
illegally occupying 43,180 sq km of Jammu and Kashmir,
including 5,180 sq km illegally ceded to Beijing
by Islamabad, China
accuses India
of possessing some 90,000 sq km of its territory, mostly in Arunachal Pradesh. It
is all very well for President Hu to assert that China was ready to work with
India to "actively seek a fair, just and mutually-acceptable solution
through friendly consultation on an equal footing" and the boundary issue
will be converted into a "bond of good-neighbourliness and
mutually-beneficial cooperation”. Plainly put, “fair, just solution” clearly
implies that both countries hold on to the respective areas under their
control.
The wily and inscrutable Chinese
have not budged an inch from their stated positions on two critical issues,
which form the core of the fragile Sino-Indian ties since the 1962 war. New Delhi
failed to get Beijing to either present maps of
their version of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) which have been promised
since 2001 and the fortification of its borders on the Tibet plateau. Significantly, while
the two sides have exchanged maps on the LAC in the Central sector, Beijing continues to drag
its feet on the Western sector. Why? It is busy building a railway link to Lhasa which will improve its capacity in case of a
conflict with India.
“This is only to strengthen our
borders,” Beijing
asserts. Against whom? Is this any different from the massive building of roads
during the 1950s to liberate Tibet?
Also, the recent shooting by Chinese
border guards on 77 unarmed Tibetans, fleeing to India
via Nepal through the
5,800-metre-high Nangpa-la Pass 77 Tibetans, to pursue Tibetan Buddhist studies
in schools run by the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala reinforces the belief that Beijing runs Tibet with an iron fist.
In strategic terms, we needed to
pin down Beijing
on this. Especially against the backdrop of historic blunders by Nehru and
Vajpayee. The former for acknowledging China’s
“sovereignty” over Tibet
when, actually, it historically exercised only “suzerainty”. The latter for
formally conceding Tibet
as a part of the Republic of China. More.
Vajpayee agreed to a new framework of border talks focused on an elusive
"package" settlement. Forgetting that reciprocity is fundamental to
diplomacy.
See how the Chinese have cleverly
fooled us on Sikkim and we blindly
revel in the fact that Beijing has accepted Sikkim as a part of India. When nothing of the sort has
happened. China
may have ceased to depict Sikkim
as an independent country in its maps, but the important point, often
overlooked, is that it has yet to expressly acknowledge that Sikkim is part of India. Beijing
till date has declined to affirm in a joint statement with New
Delhi or even unilaterally that Sikkim
is part of the Republic
of India.
In fact, New Delhi should be wary. It is nothing but a
deliberate ploy to draw wool over South Block’s unsuspecting eyes on its
ulterior motive to annex parts of Arunachal Pradesh, especially the Tawang
area. A critical corridor between Lhasa and the Assam Valley,
Tawang is of immense military import. As it stands, Beijing has built a township across the
border in Arunachal Pradesh. Given the ethnic and cultural affinity, the
bustling township beckons the poor Arunachalis to partake the Chinese Las
Vegas. It is pertinent to recall that when Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister, Gegong
Apang applied for a visa to visit China as a member of an Indian delegation,
Beijing said no visa was needed for its own citizens! Either way it does not augur well for the
border talks, already the longest between any two nations in modern world history.
More. Fearing a cold shoulder
from its counterpart, New Delhi
refused to take up the issue of Chinese support to the Indo-US nuclear deal
with the visiting President. Beijing
is a member of the influential 45-member Nuclear Supplier Group. The reason
given out was that as the deal had still to be finalized, it would be better to
wait till then before seeking Beijing’s
concurrence.
Questionably, why did not New Delhi adopt a similar stance with the UK, Russia
and France,
which have pledged their support to the nuclear pact. Pertinently, China sees the US-Indo cooperation as a US ploy to pit India against its neigbour and act
as a counter-weight. It has been harping on “principles”---- driving home its
point that India
has not appended its signature on the NPT. And it would inflict a “hard blow to
global non-proliferation regime” and trigger a domino effect. Never mind that
Hu is slated to offer Islamabad Chinese help for constructing several nuclear
plants to counter-balance the Indo-US deal. There is no gainsaying that New Delhi is deeply suspicious of China's traditional close ties with Pakistan.
Also worrisome is Beijing’s military ties with other neighbours in South Asia. China
has a defence co-operation agreement with Bangladesh,
and has offered assistance to governments in Sri
Lanka, Nepal
and Myanmar.
China, for its part, is
warily watching India's
increasing proximity to the United States,
where the administration has promoted legislation to allow nuclear cooperation
with India
for the first time in three decades.
On the economic front too, India fears that opening its doors even wider to
low-cost Chinese manufacturers would undermine its own industries, and wants Beijing to be more
transparent about hidden subsidies. New Delhi
has been increasingly raising the ante on dumping of Chinese goods in India.
Diwali festivities this year mostly comprised of Chinese lights and patakas. New Delhi is also reluctant to throw open its
telecom and infrastructure to Chinese investment for reasons of "national
security".
Tragically, as always, New Delhi has squandered a
good opportunity to put across its point of view effectively and derive
strategic benefits crucial for its defence and in geo-strategic political
terms. Manmohan Singh, like his predecessors, has fallen a victim to the great
Indian failure of seeking convenient compromises for cheap populist applause. Failing to realize that the supposedly hard
talk of no shifting of borders and population interspersed with sweet talk of
brotherhood etc is meaningless. What counts are agreed conclusions and future
agenda on basic issues. In this case --- border.
Manmohan Singh must remember that
there is no place for emotions and sentiments in real politik. He needs to recall Nehru’s wise words after he allowed
himself to be overwhelmed by his friendly feelings and read a lot more into
Chinese words than was merited. Confessed Nehru in Parliament in September 1959:
“Seven or eight years ago, I saw no reason to discuss the question of frontiers
with the Chinese Government because, foolishly if you like, I thought there was
nothing to discuss.”
Clearly, India needs to wake up, proceed
cautiously and realistically in its dealings with the inscrutable Chinese and
his ‘guiding principles’. Else, we will be back to square one: Being outmaneuvered.
Rhetoric, loud claims notwithstanding! ----- INFA
(Copyright India News
and Feature Alliance)
NEW DELHI, 24 November 2006
No. 229 Vol. XXV Not To Be Published Before 10 October 2006
POLITICAL DIARY
Havana Accord
PAKISTAN ON SINCERITY TEST
By Poonam I. Kaushish
Trust Indo-Pakistan relations to get bogged down once more in a
tu-tu mein-mein over who walks the talk better. Both President Musharraf and
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are also quibbling over who talks better even as India is trying hard to make the best of a bad
bargain it struck at Havana.
The two agreed there last month to set up a joint institutional mechanism to
counter terrorism. Many searching questions have been justly raised. At the end
of the day, however, the upside is that the peace process
is back on the rails and both are talking again. Will Musharraf walk and how
far, time alone will tell!
Indeed, from thinking out of the box to walking the talk,
Indo-Pakistan ties have come a long way. From people-to-people contact to bus
rides across the Line of Control in
Jammu & Kashmir to japphies-puppies et al. But the biggest bug-bear in all
this is brazen terrorism. And till Musharraf, described by the Wall Street
Journal as a “favourite dictator” of the Bush Administration, honestly says
what he means and means what he says, there can be no serious walking the talk.
Evidence of the ISI involvement in the Mumbai serial train blasts together with
those of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Students Islamic Movement of
India (SIMI) says it all.
Who got the better of the other at Havana,
where the two CEOs met on September 16 on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) Summit?
Clearly, President Musharraf, notwithstanding Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s
claims to the contrary. The General cleverly “managed” Singh to concede that
not only India but Pakistan
too was a victim of terrorism and that both needed a joint institutional
mechanism to fight terrorism. What is
more, the Prime Minister is said to have given his consent without consulting
his own Cabinet Committee on Security. Importantly,
experts would have us believe that the U.S. Intelligence had proposed as far
back as 1991 that India
should set up a joint counter-terror mechanism with Pakistan. But the proposal was shot down as meaningless in the context of Pakistan and its perfidious past.
Mysteriously, Manmohan Singh was
inclined in favour of a joint mechanism even before he met Musharraf. This
became evident when he told accompanying media on his way to Havana that terrorism constituted a “threat
to both countries” and “it is incumbent on us to work together”. All that has come to pass
thereafter has proved right the initial surprise and strong opposition to the
joint mechanism by most experts both in Indo-Pakistan affairs and national
security. In fact, the joint anti-terror mechanism between our two countries
continues to defy logic. Especially, as the General talks one thing today and
quite the opposite tomorrow, obviously to save his gaddi in Islamabad.
Time and again, the General has
repeated “Kashmir runs in Pakistan’s
veins and in my veins”. His thinking on terrorism is equally clear . He has reportedly stated and told “big
brother” in Washington and in New York, where he released his memoirs, “In The Line of
Fire”, described by many as “In the Line of Lies”, that the right to
self-determination and plebiscite for the people of Kashmir
continues to be main agenda. Earlier,
his mind on combating terrorism became clear when he told a media meet in Brussels:
“I don’t hold a whistle to control them (militants)”. Given this background and
the General’s known basic thinking on Kashmir
and terrorism, the joint anti-terrorist mechanism not only makes no sense but
leaves us with the uncomfortable feeling that an unduly trusting Manmohan Singh
fell into the wily General’s trap at the behest of the Americans.
The proposed joint mechanism to
tackle terrorism by both “equally hurt” nations is proving to be a big farce as
developments since September 16 show. In
fact, it has now become a major issue
of discontent in India’s
relations with Pakistan,
although neither Government has made any
official announcement about the composition or, importantly, the scope and functional
modalities of the joint mechanism. These are expected to be worked out formally by the Foreign
Secretaries of India and Pakistan
before long. However, a controversy has already erupted over the very
definition of terror, terrorism and terrorists. Pakistan’s
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Chief, Syed Salahuddin has claimed that groups fighting for Kashmir are freedom fighters and not terrorists.
Salahuddin’s claim, which is
quite in line with Musharraf’s thinking from the word go, forced New Delhi to
react and clarify through the spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs:
“There is no doubt in our minds as to what constitutes terrorism and it is
clear that the group is mandated to address
all forms of terrorism.” But Pakistan
has not allowed matters to rest there. It has, in addition, declared that there
is no question of handing over anyone to India and that people like the
much-wanted criminal Dawood Ibrahim have their own status.
Developments during the last
fortnight or so have made confusion worse confounded. While Musharraf, who masterminded Kargil in
1999 and the IC-814 hijacking, is quietly watching the drama, Manmohan Singh
has been compelled to state that the joint mechanism agreed to between him and
the Pak President has “yet to take off”. Further, “we have to test it and will
test it”. Of great help in this context
will be the excellent job done by the Mumbai Police in investigating and
collecting convincing evidence to show that the serial train blasts in July
last were essentially the handiwork
of Pakistan’s
Inter Service Intelligence (ISI).
New Delhi
is now preparing to communicate to Islamabad
the conclusive evidence collected by the Mumbai police without compromising its
own sources. Manmohan Singh has,
therefore, appropriately stated that India
will now tell Pakistan:
“Here is what our people have discovered.
We will test them on how sincere they are in carrying forward the
commitment I and President Musharraf underlined in our joint statement (in
Havana)….. We will test the waters. As
the Foreign Secretary (Shivshankar Menon) has said, I think Pakistan will have to walk the
talk”.
Contrary to New
Delhi’s expectations, information coming from Pakistan is not of any great help.
Even if Islamabad takes some steps to implement
what Musharraf committed at Havana, it is clear
that the information about the terrorist attacks which the Government of India
passes on to Islamabad, will be processed and interpreted first, placed before their
courts next and then only will any action be taken. Moreover, irrespective of the outcome of their enquiry,
the guilty will never be handed over to New
Delhi. Dawood Ibrahim and his 19 criminal associates, who masterminded the Mumbai blasts in
1993, are a scandalous case in point.
All manner of arguments have been
advanced in support of the joint mechanism. Infiltration, it is said, is down
and bygones should be treated as bygones in the larger interest of continuing
the peace dialogue, firmly advocated by the US.
However, all these justifications are flawed as these disregard the
basic fact that terrorism is an integral instrument of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Not unexpectedly, Pakistan’s spokesperson recently
drew a sharp distinction between terrorists and those “associated
with the freedom struggle.” What is
more, the spokesperson clarified that “the institutionalized mechanism does not
talk about handing over people by either side or exchanging lists of wanted
persons.”
That is not all. The “institutional mechanism”, according to Satish
Chandra, former Deputy National Security Adviser and formerly India’s High
Commissioner to Pakistan, is not
only “doomed to failure” in the absence of any genuine desire of Pakistan to
cooperate on terrorism, but its establishment will be “counter productive”. He
adds: “On the one hand, sensitive intelligence shared on this net will be used
against us, and on the other hand, the world would see us as partners against
terror. It is, therefore, no surprise that Musharraf swiftly squashed Dr.
Manmohan Singh’s assertion that the
proposed institutional mechanism was a ‘test’ for Pakistan. By asserting that it was a test for both countries and
that he also had some observations about interference in Pakistan”.
New Delhi
needs to be doubly on its guard against Islamabad’s
wily moves and its capacity to take India for a ride again and
again. More so since some experts on
Indo-Pakistan affairs and security matters view the focus on terrorism at Havana as a “smoke screen” for “useful discussions” between them on Kashmir.
Manmohan Singh told newsmen on his flight back home that he and Musharraf had
“agreed” to find a “via media” between India’s
stand that borders would not be redrawn and Pakistan’s stand that it would not
accept the LoC as a permanent solution. As always, both sides are playing for “heads
I win, tails you lose”. Time alone will
name the winner. Meanwhile, we in India will need to keep our fingers
crossed! ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
6 October 2006
No 81 Vol XXIV Not To Be Published Before 19 April 2005
POLITICAL DIARY
Dragon Wen Meets Tiger Singh
CHINA OUTMANOEUVRES INDIA
By Poonam I Kaushish
He came, he saw and, he
conquered. This encapsulates Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s four-day visit
to India
last week. The media went to town, hailing it as a landmark visit. (The
phraseology somehow remained the same for most.) Both Wen and Manmohan Singh
were gung ho about the outcome: turf out the acrimonious past and push for
bilateral ties. Giving a fresh momentum to “strategic cooperation for peace and
prosperity”. Eleven agreements running the entire gamut of relations were signed
as also the guiding principles for the political resolution of the boundary dispute.
Surprisingly, the dragon did not spew fire and the tiger obligingly hailed this
as historic!
If the truth be told, the
so-called “historic and successful” visit has been anything but successful from
India’s
point of view. New Delhi
played into the hands of the Chinese, thanks to its poor tactics, and allowed
itself to be outmanoeuvered. True, much appears to have been achieved on the
political, economic and trade front. However, Beijing succeeded in its strategy
of getting New Delhi to change its perception about China, even as it pushed
ahead to contain India without conceding any ground to South Block. New Delhi calls it a
“win-win” situation. Correct. It is a Wen-win situation.
Beyond the diplomatese in the
zero-sum game, Beijing
has had its say and way. The wily and inscrutable Chinese have not budged an
inch from their stated positions on three critical issues, which form the core
of the fragile Sino-Indian ties since the 1962 war. New Delhi
failed to get Beijing to either present maps of
their version of the LAC or to forswear further transfers of missiles and
nuclear technology to Pakistan.
Can New Delhi really trust Beijing
and accept it as a friend so long as it goes on arming Pakistan and fortifies its border on the Tibet
plateau. India’s
bid for membership of the UN Security Council. Never mind the eulogies of
friendship harking back to Hindi-Chini
bhai-bhai.
Beijing has once again used a web of words to
create the grand illusion of a new pragmatic formula to settle the border
problem. An example: the boundary question to be resolved through peaceful and
friendly consultations to arrive at a ‘common understanding’ in their strategic
and comprehensive perspective and setting principles to solve it (sic). But
looking beyond the euphism and prolific prose nothing really has changed. In 1988,
both sides took a first look into political principles for solving the dispute.
On 10 March last, the Special Representatives of the two countries met for the
fifth time to look into the political principles for solving the border issue.
Following that, the Joint Working Group, revived after 2002, held talks for
“clarification and confirmation of the LAC.” Think, it has taken us nearly 25
years to ponder over mere principles, not the actual delineation and
demarcation.
It is all very well for New Delhi to talk of
resolving the boundary issue and “arrive at a fair, reasonable solution
acceptable to both sides based on equal consultation, mutual understanding and
accommodation, respect for history and accommodation of reality.” Plainly put,
“accommodation of history and reality” clearly implies that both countries hold
on to the respective areas under their control. Thus, China would continue to occupy 38,000 sq kms of mineral-rich
Aksai Chin, besides 5180 sq kms of Kashmir, ceded by Pakistan. It is also claiming
90,000 sq kms in India’s
eastern sector. This brazenly flies in the face of Parliament’s historic
resolution of 14 November
1962 pledging that “India
will recover every inch of the territory lost to the Chinese, howsoever long or
hard the struggle may be.” Moved by Nehru himself, the resolution was adopted
by the members standing.
In his press conference, India’s
Foreign Secretary talked of a “package settlement” on the boundary issue. It
means that it will be a settlement which has a certain overall balance in terms
of whatever adjustments that will be made. What does this mean? Can New Delhi part with even
an inch of its space in the name of a fair and reasonable solution? What is
reasonable? Ceding Aksai Chin or the so-called Tawang tract for peace and
tranquility? Of course, Beijing
has reason to be satisfied with the areas it controls as these serve its
strategic long-term goals. Hence, its stress on ‘actual ground position’ line,
jointly demarcated and accepted by both sides.
Significantly, while the two
sides have exchanged maps on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Central
sector, Beijing
continues to drag its feet on the Western sector. In the Eastern front too, Beijing would give its
left arm to acquire parts of Arunachal Pradesh. In fact, New
Delhi should not be fooled by Beijing’s
outward magnanimity of accepting Sikkim
as a part of India.
It is nothing but a deliberate ploy to draw wool over South Block’s
unsuspecting eyes on its ulterior motive to annex parts of Arunachal Pradesh,
especially the Tawang area.
As it stands, Beijing has built several townships across
the border in Arunachal Pradesh. Given the ethnic and cultural affinity, the
bustling township beckons the poor Arunachalis to partake the Chinese Las
Vegas. It is pertinent to recall that when Arunachal Chief Minister, Gegong
Apang applied for a visa to visit China as a member of an Indian delegation,
Beijing said no visa was needed for its own citizens!
Of great concern to India is Beijing’s
military build-up in Tibet.
It is busy building a railway link to Lhasa
which will improve its capacity in case of a conflict with India. “This is only to strengthen
our borders,” it asserts. Against whom? Is this any different from the massive
building of roads during the 50s to liberate Tibet? In strategic terms, we
needed to pin down Beijing
on this. Especially against the backdrop of historic blunders by Nehru and
Vajpayee. The former for acknowledging China’s
“sovereignty” over Tibet
when, actually, it historically exercised only “suzerainty”. The latter for formally
conceding Tibet
as a part of the Republic of China. Forgetting that reciprocity is fundamental
to diplomacy.
Even as New
Delhi basks in the glow of being granted “liason” status with the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, it needs to be wary of Beijing’s basic motive. The Shanghai lollipop is only to get admission
into SAARC, capture its markets and become S.E Asia’s undisputed leader. Barring
New Delhi, the
other member countries have welcomed the move. As matters stand, the Chinese
have built up a great rapport with its other neighbours. Clearly, China’s ballgame is to keep New Delhi in good humour as it encircles us. Remember,
it has increased its military activity in Pakistan,
Myanmar, Nepal and Bangladesh. Its military spending
has snowballed to $29.5b in 2005.
Tragically as always, New Delhi has squandered a
good opportunity to put across its point of view effectively and derive
strategic benefits crucial for its defence and in geo-strategic political
terms. Manmohan Singh, like his predecessors, has fallen a victim to the great
Indian failure of seeking convenient compromises for cheap populist applause. Witness
the way his spin-doctors are offering apologies for China’s
failure to candidly support India’s
case for membership of the UN Security Council. “Wen communicated China’s
support to the PM during his three-hour talk”, hedge PMO sources.
Unmindful of the Chinese Premier
making it subtly clear that all Beijing has
supported are “India’s
aspirations for playing a bigger role in international affairs, including the
UN.” Rubbishing in one fell stroke the positive spin painstakingly given by the
PM’s media managers. Failing to realize that the three-hour long sweet talk of
brotherhood etc is meaningless. What counts are agreed conclusions and future
agenda as set out in the all-important Joint Statement at the end of the visit.
Manmohan Singh, a good and
sincere person indeed, must remember that there is no place for emotions and
sentiments in real politik. Nehru
allowed himself to be overwhelmed by his friendly feelings and read a lot more
into Chinese words than was merited, as he himself admitted in Parliament in
September 1959. His words need to be recalled. He confessed: “Seven or eight
years ago, I saw no reason to discuss the question of frontiers with the Chinese
Government because, foolishly if you like, I thought there was nothing to
discuss.”
Clearly, India needs to wake up, proceed
cautiously and realistically in its dealings with the ‘guiding principles’. Else,
we will be back to square one: Being outmanoeuvered by the inscrutable Chinese.
Rhetoric, loud claims notwithstanding! ----- INFA
(Copyright India News
and Feature Alliance)
NEW DELHI, 15 April 2005
|
