The UPA Government has not taken the public into confidence on India’s embarrassing failure to secure support of several countries in affirming its territorial rights over Arunachal Pradesh at Asian Development Bank (ADB). The picture given by the UPA is at variance with the facts disclosed by ADB.
On May 19, media carried reports quoting officials of Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) as saying that that there was no pending issue on $2.9 billion country plan loan sanctioned by ADB.
A news story in a leading business daily reads as: “MEA sources confirmed that there is no mention of disclosure agreement and that the country partnership strategy loan for India is endorsed by the Asian Development Bank.”
According to the story, “MEA sources further explained that while China may have a position on Arunachal Pradesh, the ADB has not hesitated to approve the country loan to India.”
This is correct. But what MEA has not disclosed is the fact that ADB has blacked out the name ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ from the abridged version of ‘India: Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) 2009-2012’ under pressure from China.
MEA has also not disclosed that the fact the United States and several other friendly countries including Afghanistan let down India at a meeting of ADB board of directors on July 17, by abstaining from voting on the issue that ADB should not disclose Arunachal Pradesh in CPS. More of this later.
In the CPS, ADB has clarified “In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.”
It is for the first time that ADB has placed any clarification on any Indian project loan document, according to an analyst.
On the cover page of CPS, ADB says: “This document has been prepared on the basis of the India: Country Partnership Strategy 2009-2012 (the Strategy) discussed by the Board of Directors on June 15, 2009. On July 17, 2009, in accordance with the Board paper on ADB’s Public Communications Policy (2005) -Request for Waiver of Disclosure Requirements, the Board waived the requirement to make the Strategy publicly available. This document reflects in substance the economic development thrust and direction of the Strategy”.
Before discussing what transpired in ADB boardroom, it is pertinent to recall the fact ADB has been mentioning ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ in its documents without any hesitation till China raised an objection in June 2009.
Refer to a document titled ‘Country Operations Business Plan-India 2009’ that ADB prepared in December 2008. It has mentioned Arunachal Pradesh as neighbouring State of Assam while mentioning the need for integrating flood control initiatives in the two States.
ADB had, in fact, issued a release on October 16, 2008 with headline ‘ADB to help India’s Arunachal Pradesh Combat Floods, Erosion.’
The Bank developed cold feet in reiterating this geographical and sovereign truth only after China raised an objection at a meeting of ADB’s Board of Directors on June 15, where it considered CPS.
According to minutes of this meeting, the board supported CPS “from the perspective of its economic development thrust and direction and without taking a position on the legal status of any territory or geographic region referred to in the document. The Board emphasized that ADB shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member and urged the Management to formulate guidelines for staff on dealing with disputed areas.”
This obviously means that China had submitted its objections to ADB Secretariat over the mention of Arunachal Pradesh in CPS.
The minutes said: “The People’s Republic of China (PRC) did not endorse the CPS because ADB had not deleted all references to the disputed territory in the document to address the PRC’s fundamental concerns. The PRC strongly opposed the Management’s decision to discuss the India CPS and protested against ADB’s interfering in the sovereign affairs of the PRC. The PRC stated that the disputed area, which is called ‘Monyul, Loyul and Lower Tsayul of Tibet’ in the PRC and is called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ in India, has always been part of the Chinese territory. The PRC urged the Management to issue guidelines on dealing with ADB’s activities in the disputed areas, with the provision, among others, that there will be no activity of ADB whatsoever in the disputed areas without agreement by all the claimants concerned. The PRC stressed that no operation shall be conducted by ADB in the above-mentioned disputed area.”
Pakistan joined hands with China in opposing CPS. The former stressed the need for ADB staff to be sensitive to disputed territories.
Pakistan contended: “Insensitivity to such issues could not be condoned and documents issued by ADB should not actually be used to, or be perceived to be used to, make statements of a political nature.”
The minutes continued: “While supporting the call by the Board to issue staff guidelines for dealing with such cases, Pakistan wanted the guidelines to be framed in consultation with the Board. Pakistan further noted that they could go along with the economic and development dimension of the CPS but their no objection, in principle, to this is without prejudice to the Government of Pakistan’s well known position on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and the Government of the People’s Republic of China’s position regarding the disputed territory with India referred to in the CPS document.”
At the Board meeting on June 25, India protested against ADB’s move to dilute its stance on CPS and asked for inclusion of its dissent in the revised draft minutes of June 15, meeting.
Indian representative on the Board stated “CPS had already been delayed far too long and for no logical reasons.” He pointed out all the project-related territories in the CPS are integral parts of India and the territorial integrity of India is sacrosanct.
The Board supported CPS and noted that it would not take a position on the legal status of any territory referred to in the document.
He reminded ADB that its own guidelines required it to publish CPS on its website not later than 14 days after the board meeting. “That date would be June 29, 2009. We call upon the Management not to violate its own guidelines”.
ADB failed to meet this timeline and thus violated its CPS guidelines prepared in January 2007. The guidelines stipulate: “After Board endorsement, the CPS is published and placed on the ADB website as soon as possible but no later than 14 days after the Board Meeting.”
The delay in making CPS public figured at the Board meeting on July 17, where ADB’s request for waiver of disclosure requirements under its Public Communication Policy was considered. India demanded vote on this issue. And India lost because several friendly countries preferred to sit on the fence instead of casting their votes.
Apart from the US, Afghanistan, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland abstained.
Apart from India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan opposed the disclosure waiver.
The minutes of July 15, meeting has, however, recorded India’s dissent as: “India strongly objected to the proposal as it was in complete disregard to the stated objectives of the ADB’s Public Communications Policy and against the highest tenets of transparency and accountability. The proposal sought to publish a document that is at variance from the India: Country Partnership Strategy 2009-2012 endorsed by India and the Board of Directors. As far as India is concerned, the CPS is valid and has been endorsed by the Board.”
ADB made public the abridged and doctored version of CPS in the second week of September.
According to an analyst, UPA Government must ensure that such diplomatic fiasco is not repeated at ADB and other multilateral financial institutions.
Comments