Round The World

New Delhi, 15 September 2008

Beijing No Angel

EXPOSES DOUBLE STANDARDS

By Monish Tourangbam

School of International Studies (JNU)

Efforts to put an end to the ambivalence regarding China's role during the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting at Vienna dominated the course of the visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jeichi to India recently. Yang said that he was "shocked" to read news reports in India that China had attempted to play a spoiler at the NSG meeting.

Asserting that there was no competition between the two Asian neighbours, Yang underscored that Beijing wanted to "move beyond doubts" in order to craft a cooperative and strategic relationship with New Delhi. Besides, China had made clear its intention to support India before the final draft was circulated at the NSG meeting, he added.

According to his statements, Beijing had settled its policy for the NSG meeting before the Chinese President Hu Jintao left for his Korean trip on 26 August. Sounding diplomatically correct, he denied any real competition in the "fundamental sense" and referred to statements by the Indian political leadership that Asia was big enough to accommodate the rise of both the countries.

Clearly, these statements run contrary to the recent article in the People's Daily, mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party of China by an associate researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a Government run think-tank, deriding the merits of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. Terming the safeguards agreement that India signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as loose and non-binding, the author talked about the apprehensions that it had raised in the international community.

Critical of the "double standards" followed by Washington on non-proliferation, the article said, "Whether because of geostrategic considerations or driven by commercial interests, the U.S.-India nuclear agreement will have a significant impact on the international non-proliferation mechanism." Terming the initial proposal presented by the U.S. to the NSG as "vague", it complained that the deal allowed New Delhi to continue with nuclear tests "as there is no constraining link between supply of nuclear materials and India conducting a nuclear test."

Needless to say this article surprised New Delhi as Beijing had considerably watered down its objection to the Indo-U.S. deal in the run-up to the parleys at Vienna. In fact, the Chinese establishment had been making vague comments that it respected the sovereign right of every country to develop its capability for using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but avoided any direct criticism of the deal.

However post article, Beijing went into damage control mode, thereby, indicating a split within its Establishment. The division came to the fore when its Foreign Ministry refused to endorse the article. In a bland statement its spokesperson asserted that she had not read the article. But added that China hoped the NSG found a way to strike a balance between N non-proliferation and the peaceful use of energy. Implying, Beijing wanted the deal to be modified, made more palatable and was prepared to consider supporting it if the "relevant countries" provided the necessary assurances on nuclear safeguards.

Importantly, however, things are not always clear as they seem. The history of Chinese diplomacy is witness to the fact that its Establishment will never dirty their linen in the public when it comes to a crucial foreign policy issue. It seems highly implausible that the People's Daily would be allowed to publish an article against the wishes and without the knowledge of the Government.

As such, rather than indicating a real split in the Chinese leadership, the whole thing seems a synchronized step to keep New Delhi guessing on Beijing’s real intentions regarding its stand at Vienna.

Recall, on day one of the NSG meet, China showed its "true colors" and quietly opposed the waiver by joining the naysayers’ bandwagon, which included Austria, New Zealand, Ireland and Switzerland. By day two, Beijing openly accused the NSG of trying to intimidate countries to support the waiver making plain its intentions of delaying the process.

Bluntly, without the NSG waiver, the deal could not be forwarded to the US Congress for ratification and would be ‘dead.’ Following intense efforts by Washington and a last-minute call by President Bush to his Chinese counterpart Beijing backed off. New Delhi, on it part issued Beijing a demarche.  

Notwithstanding this, top echelons in the Government are busy savoring the taste of the pudding rather than finding out how it was made. Reacting to Beijing’s stand, asserted Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, "Every sovereign country has the right to express its sovereign will. I don't want to comment on what role was played by which country…this is their internal matter."

Obviously, New Delhi is keen to remove uneasiness in Indo-Chinese ties prior to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visit to Beijing next month. Towards that end, the Congress Party too has erased Beijing's opposition at Vienna as a bad dream and accepted the Chinese Foreign Minister’s version.

But, such diplomatic niceties were absent when the National Security Advisor Narayanan, reported to the Union Cabinet that China was the last one standing against India as all other objectors fell in line. In fact, Narayanan, made plain that Beijing’s opposition was “not ideological like the other non-proliferation enthusiasts" that have strict non-proliferation ideals.

In sum, amidst this "Chinese jugglery", New Delhi needs to remember that Beijing is far from being an "angel" when it comes to proliferation of nuclear know-how and materials. Has China forgotten that it had signed a bilateral civilian nuclear power agreement with the Reagan Administration in 1985 when it was not a signatory to the NPT? --- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)