CHINA'sdemarche, a formal diplomatic communication to elicit information from another state, to four powers?USA, Japan, Australia and India?a day before their first-ever official meeting last month to discuss quadrilateral security cooperation is a measure of Beijing'ssensitivity to other states making any strategic moves in its neighbourhood. Japan, Australia and US are close military allies for long. It was perhaps India'sassociation with quadrilateral security cooperation that raised China'shackles. Interestingly, New Delhi resisted for a year pressures to join the group because of its ?encirclement of China? connotation. However, it was persuaded by Japan last year on the premise that the group was to hold security consultations and other issues of mutual interest.
Mindful of Chinese concern, the four powers held an exploratory meeting on the sidelines of the Asian Regional Forum (ARF) in Manila on May 24 and 25 without any formal agenda. They neither publicised the meeting nor made public what was discussed or decided. Japan has all along been trying to persuade India to shed its hesitation and join the ?Arc of Prosperity and Freedom? around the outer rim of the Eurasian continent. Washington too has been keen to build some sort of military and strategic partnership around China with a view to encouraging Beijing to play the role of a ?responsible? stakeholder in Asia. China has also taken exception to American, Indian, Japanese and Australian navies working together after the 2004 tsunami as well as India, Japan and US staging trilateral naval exercises on Japan'seastern coast. Beijing saw it as a signal for the new balance of power in the Asian region and projected it as an American move to prevent China and Russia from joining hands. Beijing is worried about the explicit military dimension to the emerging cooperation. That is what India needs to do on other fronts to make China see reason on the border and other issues of lasting interest to India.
Defence Minister A.K. Antony'scategorical statement that Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India and that no one can stop the country from building roads and infrastructure on its side of the border is obviously meant to put the record straight in the light of Chinese persistent attempts to bring its claim over the Indian state in public discourse. On its part, Beijing has been consistently reiterating its claim over Arunachal Pradesh by sending subtle yet firm messages through various ways. It all began with the Chinese Ambassador Sun Yuxi'sremarks just ahead of President Hu'svisit to India in November 2006. It was followed by Beijing'srefusal to issue visas first to a delegation from Arunachal Pradesh and later to an IAS officer working in the state on the spurious ground that ?Chinese citizens? don'tneed visas to visit their own country.
More worrisome is China'sForeign Minister Yang Jiechi'sremarks made to his Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee to the effect that ?mere presence? of populated areas won'taffect Chinese boundary claims. This observation is significant as it is a virtual rebuttal of the Prime Minister'spublic statement that populated areas couldn'tbe negotiated while settling boundary disputes. Further, Beijing'sstand is against the spirit of the 2005 agreement on guiding principles and political parameters within which the two countries agreed to address the boundary issue. Article 17 of the said agreement says, ?In reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard the interests of their settled population in the border areas?. Another worrisome aspect of China'shardening stand is President Hu'sfailure to respond to Prime Minister'sreference to boundary issue and sharing of hydraulic data on Sutlej, Brahmputra and other trans-border rivers in a recent bilateral meeting with President Hu in Berlin. This despite Dr Singh'sconciliatory gesture in describing China as India's?greatest neighbour? and that New Delhi would do everything to cement this relationship.
New Delhi'spropensity to go an extra mile to woo China has almost always misfired. A case in point is Dr Singh'slaudatory reference to China without evoking an equally warm response from Hu. In a desperate bid to get China'snod to Sikkim being a part of India, New Delhi officially declared that Autonomous Region of Tibet (ART)?a part of original Tibet that has not been merged in neighbouring states?is an integral part of China. It was indeed an intriguing statement on the part of the Government. That New Delhi reiterating that Tibet was part of China that is the official policy since 50s is one thing and describing ART as an integral part of China is another. Why give recognition to vivisection of Tibet and merging parts of it in Chinese provinces? Nehru Government committed the original sin by allowing Communist China to swallow Tibet that led to enslavement of Tibetans and massive influx of Tibetan refugees into India. It destroyed the buffer state between India and China and brought the latter to our borders with consequences that are too momentous and well known to deserve recalling.
China has cleverly leveraged Indo-Pak conflicts and differences between India and Nepal for its strategic purposes during the past half a century. New Delhi needs to reciprocate our northern neighbour'sstrategic moves more sophistically without disrupting the on-going border talks and attempts to strengthen state-to-state relations. USA that is engaging China for greater economic and trade relations takes advantage of China'snumerous fault lines. Unfortunately, New Delhi is stuck up with ?One China? policy and our diplomacy is paralysed by apprehensions of how China would respond to our strategic moves. Why can India think imaginatively and initiate moves to deal with Greater China comprising People'sRepublic of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet? Recent visit to India of Ma Yingieu, presidential candidate of the Chinese Communist Party?KMT?of Taiwan was an opportunity and challenge to send across a strong message about our strategy to engage with Taiwan. New Delhi miserably failed to exploit that opportunity for its strategic interests. Whether under pressure from the CPM?that has emerged the arbiter of our foreign policy since 2004?or of its own inability to think out of the box, UPA Government downplayed the visit and lost an opportunity to strengthen bilateral ties with Taiwan?a democracy and one of the Asia'slargest trading entities.
New Delhi needs to overcome its ?One China? policy without violating state-to-state relations with China as other democracies are doing. Unfortunately, our hostility to Taiwan despite our cordial relations with the late Chiang Kaishek was more hostile than that of Beijing. China is constantly engaging with the nationalist group despite its resolve to see Taiwan as part of Greater China. NDA Government did initiate moves for bilateral trade ties with Taiwan. KMT leader'svisit was an opportunity to send across a clear signal of India'snew strategy to deal with Greater China comprising People'sRepublic of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet? Together these entities have the potential of becoming India'slargest trading partners. The large and economically powerful Chinese network all over Southeast Asia can be motivated to invest heavily in India. It is no one'scase that India should proceed to establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan. It needs to hasten slowly on this front but it needs to overcome its unimaginative diplomacy and obsession with what China will do or say if we use fault lines in Greater China to our strategic advantage.
Comments