No 268 Vol XXV                                  Not To Be Published Before 28 November 2006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