Another one. We always talk about Indian dhoti shivering .But here is the chinese version of it based on the video description (no idea what the actual video is talking though).
We all know how brilliant is Indian media in spreading negative rumours and insecurity among people. contrary to that belief here is chinese media showing possible indian aggression over line of actual control and even capture of Beijing most likly with the new Sukhoi squadrons ,Missile regiments and Armoured divisions deployed in north east.
in order to support this hypothetical invasion scenario chinese media also present a sign board allegedly erected by Indian army which states..'' lhasa.. , Beijing.. We will be there ''
Another one. India, China Military Tie-up Raised Western Tension - Chinese media
In his paper, Professor Thayer says the ''most disturbing'' trend in defence spending is China's growing reliance on citizen fishing fleets and paramilitary forces gathering in a disputed area to assert Chinese jurisdiction
While all issues will be on the table during the meeting with Mr. Wen, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said New Delhi was looking at more collaborations with Beijing in key infrastructure and manufacturing sectors, besides continuing with its “lively discussions” on the issue of a fair trade balance and market access for India in the pharmaceutical and IT industries.
India and China will make one last attempt at making progress on the border question before a new leadership takes over in Beijing.
National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon will travel to Beijing immediately after the India-China Strategic Economic Dialogue at the end of this month to meet his counterpart Dai Bingguo who lays down office in March next year.
The two Special Representatives will be meeting after almost a year, having last met in New Delhi this January. The stalemate can be assessed from the fact that there were no talks during the whole of last year.{This visit should no appear as though India is desperate for something before the change. Already, planted stories are circulating that the new leadership would be tougher on the disputes}
"The issue was mentioned in the context of the ongoing dialogue between the two countries,’’ Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said while briefing newspersons on a 40-minute meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit and associated meetings here on Monday morning.
With Mr. Wen retiring in March, the two leaders went down memory lane recalling their long association spanning seven years and 14 meetings, besides focusing on economic issues.
Although several rounds of dialogue between the two Senior Representatives did not resolve all the differences, these interactions as well as associated instruments such as the inter-Ministerial Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on Border Affairs had largely helped maintain peace and tranquility on the border, noted Mr. Wen. {which means that there has been no progress on the resolution of the problem}
Flanked by a complement of senior officials and Ministers, Mr. Wen described his experience of working with Dr. Singh as "memorable" and was confident that the new leadership that takes over next year in Beijing will give greater importance to ties with New Delhi.
Dr. Singh noted the elaborate dialogue architecture between the two countries – four meetings between Foreign Ministers in one year besides several two-way high level visits – and pointed out this had branched out into new areas such as dialogue on west and central Asia. The two sides also plan to engage in talks on maritime security.
The two leaders spent some time on economic engagement in view of the Strategic Economic Dialogue on November 26 to be co-chaired by Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and head of the National Development and Reform Commission Zhang Ping who will be accompanied by a large delegation of business and economic specialists.
Dr. Singh also touched on greater market access to Indian pharmaceutical, IT and service sectors and welcomed Chinese investment in infrastructure to partly bridge trade deficit. China did recognise the need for balancing two-way trade but indicated that this would come about gradually, said Mr. Mathai.
Asked whether the East Asia Summit (10 ASEAN member plus the eight dialogue partners) would discuss the South China Sea dispute, Mr. Mathai said the Prime Minister had emphasised that this forum was important for accelerated economic development and enhancing the economic interests of all participating countries. While leaders will also take up issues of immediate concern, the overriding priority was to build bridges of cooperation. India supported efforts to announce a code of conduct in South China Sea where there are overlapping claims by China and some ASEAN members.
The ascendancy of a new dynasty of 'princelings' in China, the political uncertainty in Japan and India, and US President Barack Obama's 'pivot' toward Asia underscore the challenge of building Asian power equilibrium at a time of resurgent border disputes and growing nationalism. Obama, by undertaking an Asian tour shortly after his re-election, has signalled that Asia will move up in importance in his second-term agenda.
Obama's historic visit to Myanmar will aid India's 'Look East' policy because it formally ends a 24-year US policy of punitively isolating a country that is the Indian gateway to continental south-east Asia. The US shift on Myanmar is as much about seizing trade and investment opportunities as it is about the geopolitical objective of weaning that strategically-located country away from Chinese influence.
Paradoxically, it was the US sanctions policy that penalised Myanmar but condoned China for crushing pro-democracy protests in 1988 and 1989, respectively, that helped push the former into the latter's strategic lap. {That is Realpolitik, condemning one for a crime and condoning another for the same crime at the same time}
Obama's 'pivot' toward Asia actually chimes with India's Look East policy, which has graduated to an 'Act East' policy, with the original economic logic of Look East giving way to a geopolitical logic. The thrust of the new Act East policy - unveiled with US' blessings - is to contribute to building a stable balance of power in Asia by re-establishing India's historically close ties with countries to its east.
India, in fact, has little choice but to look east because when it looks west, it sees only trouble. The entire belt to India's west from Pakistan to Syria is a contiguous arc of instability, volatility and extremism. An eastern orientation in its policy can allow India to join the economic dynamism that characterises south-east and east Asia. It is in the east again that Indian and US interests now converge significantly, in contrast to their bilateral dissonance on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.
India's new strategic ties with countries as varied as Japan, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam are important moves on the grand Asian chessboard to increase its geopolitical leeway. The US, for its part, has strengthened and expanded its security arrangements in Asia in recent years by making the most of the growing regional concerns over China's increasingly muscular approach on territorial and maritime disputes.
Both the US and India have deepened their strategic ties with Japan, which has Asia's largest naval fleet and a $5.5-trillion economy. The first serious Indo-Japanese naval exercise, involving a search-and-rescue operation, was held off the Japanese coast just five months ago. India and Japan, despite their messy domestic politics and endemic scandals, actually boast the fastest-growing bilateral relationship in Asia today.
India and China are back to sparring over territorial claims involving Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin.
It all started with the Chinese government showing Arunachal and entire Aksai Chin as part of its territory in maps of the country on their new e-passports.
Unhappy at this, the Indian embassy in Beijing is said to be issuing visas to Chinese nationals with a map of India showing Arunachal and Aksai Chin as its territories.
After the water marks in the new Chinese e-passports showed Arunachal and Aksai Chin as part of China, the Indian mission started issuing visas with Indian maps including these places as part of its territory.
India and China are back to sparring over territorial claims involving Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin.
It all started with the Chinese government showing Arunachal and entire Aksai Chin as part of its territory in maps of the country on their new e-passports.
Unhappy at this, the Indian embassy in Beijing is said to be issuing visas to Chinese nationals with a map of India showing Arunachal and Aksai Chin as its territories.
After the water marks in the new Chinese e-passports showed Arunachal and Aksai Chin as part of China, the Indian mission started issuing visas with Indian maps including these places as part of its territory.
India should show Tibet as part of our territory in the maps, with Mt Kailash as its capital!
If the border has not been delineated as yet, what is wrong with showing Tibet as part of India. The border can lie anywhere then!
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 17:55
by SSridhar
RajeshA wrote:India should show Tibet as part of our territory in the maps, with Mt Kailash as its capital!
If the border has not been delineated as yet, what is wrong with showing Tibet as part of India. The border can lie anywhere then!
That could affect the sensitivities of our Tibetan friends. Instead, we should establish a full-fledged diplomatic relationship with Republic of China. We react every time and let us act now.
n India's first official reaction, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said,"We are not prepared to accept it."
"We, therefore, ensure that our flags of disagreement are put out immediately when something happens. We can do it in an agreeable way or you can do it in a disagreeable way," he told a news channel.
China, on its part, sort of fudged the issue with its Foreign Ministry Spokesperson saying that the matter should be dealt with in a "level headed and rational manner" to avoid "unnecessary disruptions" to people to people exchanges. {Is China warning of disruptions to travel ? Let it be so if it happens}
"Hope the countries regard it in a cool-headed manner. China would like to maintain communication with other counties to ensure convenience of travel for both Chinese and foreigners", she said in Beijing. {So, Chinese action was 'cool headed' and Indian reaction was 'hot headed' ? The Chinese think they are clever ?}
The Chinese do not understand anything other than strong action or reaction. India's forward posts and aggressive patrolling prior to the 1962 war were quite the right way to deal with the Chinese. Unfortunately, we did not fully back it up with logistics, equipment, tactics, infrastructure etc. We were also complacent.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 20:32
by RajeshA
SSridhar wrote:
RajeshA wrote:India should show Tibet as part of our territory in the maps, with Mt Kailash as its capital!
If the border has not been delineated as yet, what is wrong with showing Tibet as part of India. The border can lie anywhere then!
That could affect the sensitivities of our Tibetan friends. Instead, we should establish a full-fledged diplomatic relationship with Republic of China. We react every time and let us act now.
SSridhar garu,
a long time ago, I proposed that we let all exiled Tibetans, as well as their Parliament in Exile vote on the question of Tibetan Accession to India, and let Dalai Lama give his approval for it. In response to this request for accession, the Indian Parliament can adopt a stand that they would work towards its realization, as it is the will of the Tibetan people.
Now such a stand gives India full moral legitimacy to intervene in Tibet if we wish, including in pursuing issues of human rights in Tibet, but does not formally stake a claim on Tibet as being part of India. One can call it half-an-accession!
It would however send the Chinese position on Tibet in a tailspin! Without an internationally overseen democratic vote in Tibet, they cannot claim that the Tibetans in Chinese controlled Tibet feel differently about it.
Also China cannot claim that India is on a warpath with PRC, simply because the the initiative comes from the Tibetans (in exile) and not from India. India merely says, lets see what we can do about it, without being more specific about it formally. Of course, it leaves for India the possibility that sometime in the future, we can formally accept the request for accession, and it is up to us when to do so!
Of course, many people based on that request for accession by Tibetans can start showing Tibet as part of India. Need not be shown by GoI, but others would have a good case to do so!
That would be a high amount of Naga Bhut Jolokia in Chinese butt! And all that positioning on the border issue by China would not make that burning go away!
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 20:46
by SSridhar
RajeshA ji, I do understand the mechanics that you have described. Tibet is a 'core issue' for the Chinese. We don't really care whether it is core or non-core. However, it is a very sensitive issue and it will inflame them. For a country like India which has been very mindful of Chinese sensitivities so far, it will be too much to ask it to wield the sledge hammer at the first instance itself. Let us gradually ratchet up our responses. Establishing a full fledged diplomatic relationship with RoC will also not be taken too kindly by PRC as it negates the One-China policy demanded by PRC. To my knowledge, India has not said a word on this One-China policy so far while it has acknowledged Tibet as an autonomous region of PRC. Therefore, India has a moral handle to go ahead with RoC without worrying too much about having to explain any change in its stand.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 21:24
by RajeshA
SSridhar garu,
I concur. We can ratchet up the pressure slowly.
However diplomatic relations with RoC is logically not possible. RoC themselves abide by the One-China policy. RoC official stand is that they are the rightful government of whole of China - RoC + PRC. Same is the stand of PRC Government. So one has to choose which government speaks for all of China. India has chose PRC, like the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. Only after RoC declares Independence, can India move forward to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation and then to establish full-fledged diplomatic ties.
However that does not stop us from allowing Taiwan to have a huge "trade" representation in Delhi or us having a similarly big representation in Taipei, and to according their senior-most representative a status on par with an ambassador.
So on RoC, until Taiwan themselves declare themselves independent, we can't really move forward and through them exert pressure.
What we however can do is to proliferate nuclear technology to Taiwan, perhaps through a third country, and to give them missile technology, or sell them a few BrahMos! That is, we should make Taiwan untouchable! Nukes are the way to do so! PRC has already showed us the way!
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 23:06
by svinayak
SSridhar wrote:RajeshA ji, I do understand the mechanics that you have described. Tibet is a 'core issue' for the Chinese. We don't really care whether it is core or non-core. However, it is a very sensitive issue and it will inflame them. For a country like India which has been very mindful of Chinese sensitivities so far, it will be too much to ask it to wield the sledge hammer at the first instance itself. Let us gradually ratchet up our responses. Establishing a full fledged diplomatic relationship with RoC will also not be taken too kindly by PRC as it negates the One-China policy demanded by PRC. To my knowledge, India has not said a word on this One-China policy so far while it has acknowledged Tibet as an autonomous region of PRC. Therefore, India has a moral handle to go ahead with RoC without worrying too much about having to explain any change in its stand.
India has kept a very flexible policy with respect to China for the last 50 years.
This is state policy towards another state.
Indian state has to keep all its option open including the relationship with RoC.
But the people can take any initiatives to help Tibetians and the state of Tibet.
It is important to understand the nature of the PRC state. It is not a state connected with people of different regions. People dont have natural connection to different region. Most of the normal chinese have not much information about Tibet. Tibet is alien region for them. This is not well known to most of the Indians.
PRC is state connected by one party system and a large dictatorial army.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 08:07
by SSridhar
Rajesh ji,
I do understand the RoC issue. But, that does not stop us from establishing a diplomatic relationship with them, something that we have desisted from doing so far. Let me explain.
The first principle of diplomacy and state-to-state relationship is reciprocity. While we go with hair-splitting analysis of how and why RoC's claim on mainland China would stop us from according a normal diplomatic status to it, PRC has never exhibited faith in such niceties in international relationship or when it comes to India in particular. The duly signed Instrument of Accession by the Maharajah of Jammau & Kashmir has not stopped it from entering into a border agreement with Pakistan to take over a significant 5300 Sq. Km of Indian territory in Shaksgam. If questioned, PRC says that when the J&K dispute is resolved one day, it will deal with the situation then. It talks about J&K being a vestige of history etc as though we don't know that. PRC does not shy away from issuing stapled visa for J&K residents from the Indian side while the so-called Prime Minister of PoK is accorded all diplomatic protocol whenever he visits PRC. PRC has been involved in projects in PoK which is an Indian territory under illegal Pakistani occupation. PRC has sent thousands of troops into that illegally occupied territory and reports speak of long-term lease of land by Pakistan to PRC. In the eastern sector, it asks our PM not to visit Arunachal Pradesh because it claims that state for itself and calls it Southern Tibet.
Essentially, PRC has absolutely no qualms in violating every known international and diplomatic rule and/or obligation. We will do the same unto PRC. We haven't spoken a word about One-China policy. It is for these two nations to resolve because it is a vestige of history and is complicated just as PRC claims J&K is. We recognize the existing realities which mean that China is today divided into two countries, PRC & RoC. They may have territorial claims on each other, either completely or partially. That is for them to resolve and resolve peacefully in accordance with historical facts and international laws. We shall have equally good relationship with both of them and when they finally resolve their dispute, we will also decide accordingly. Simple. Statecraft is devoid of morality but we still have a moral highground with respect to RoC-PRC issue.
Taipei has been having an 'Economic & Cultural Center' in India only since 1995. It should have been allowed to function a long time before that. Nevertheless, it is not too late. But, if one looks around, there are a few countries where RoC has a regular diplomatic mission. That is what we should encourage RoC to do as a first step with us. Establishing our embassy in Taipei can come later in accordance with a graduated ratcheting up of Indian assertion. We cannot be in a perpetual reaction mode, especially with respect to PRC. India can also do other things such as establishing a military-to-military relationship with them. Let the IN warships call on Taiwanese ports as a first step. Supplying missiles can be later though I do not see why India should not do so when PRC arms our enemy and breakaway country, Pakistan.
PRC will surely not take kindly to these things. But, the time is now ripe for India to give the screw a few right turns vis-a-vis PRC, when most East & South Asian neighbours are having problems with it or are nervous about it and when the US is decisively moving assets into AP region. PRC took advantage of the Cuban Crisis in 1962 and we need to grasp similar opportunities against PRC as and when they arise, though on a smaller scale. After all, it is PRC which has to maintain trade with us which is hugely in its favour. It has anyway denied our IT & pharma sectors entry there.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 12:01
by Christopher Sidor
Taiwan considers Tibet a part of China. We dont. Ditto for East Turkestan.
Let us assume that BJP and Congress each took the states where they are in power and formed a seperate political entity, say India and India-Bharat. This is the situation as far as Taiwan and PRC is considered. It is the case of two distinct parties, the Communist and KMT, unwilling to share power. Otherwise Taiwan is a part of China. If somehow the ruling CPC were to crumble and KMT of Taiwan were to reclaim its right to rule over China, then it would reclaim its right to rule over Tibet too. Also it would be as unyielding as PRC has been if not more with regard to the McMahon Line.
Off course if Taiwan were to ever claim, which it has not till date, that it is an independent and a separate political/legal/cultural entity than China without any claims which Beijing is making then it would be a different case. But Taiwan has not done so till now and that speaks volumes in itself.
India and China are back to sparring over territorial claims involving Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin.
It all started with the Chinese government showing Arunachal and entire Aksai Chin as part of its territory in maps of the country on their new e-passports.
Unhappy at this, the Indian embassy in Beijing is said to be issuing visas to Chinese nationals with a map of India showing Arunachal and Aksai Chin as its territories.
After the water marks in the new Chinese e-passports showed Arunachal and Aksai Chin as part of China, the Indian mission started issuing visas with Indian maps including these places as part of its territory.
Err.. So the older maps issued by the Indian embassy did not show Arunachal and Aksai Chin as its territories?
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 13:23
by SSridhar
Christopher Sidor, there are quite a few things to consider in your line of thinking. The RoC is most unlikely to overrun PRC and take over power. It is not being suggested that RoC, if it ever reoccupies PRC, would give up on Tibet & AP or return Shaksgam and Aksai Chin to us or agree to settle the border along McMahon Line etc.
Secondly, India has already conceded Tibet as an autonomous region of China. As recently as February, 2012, while inaugurating the new chancery of India in Beijing, SM Krishna said that India considered the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) as a part of China. So, how does it matter to India whether CPC or the Kuomintang claim ownership of Tibet ?
Thirdly, the question of McMahon Line. We need to be prepared for a war while continuing with discussions, trade, cultural exchange etc. It doesn't matter whether the war would be fought with PRC or RoC (even assuming that somehow it takes over mainland China).
We have to be realists and we use the RoC card to our advantage for what it is worth at current time. There is no doubt a legal and diplomatic tangle over the question of RoC. In a situation where everything was clear about the illegality of PoK, PRC has gone ahead and done pretty much what it wanted to do. We don't need to be unnecessarily bound by legal and diplomatic niceties in dealing with both PRC & RoC.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 17:27
by RajeshA
SSridhar wrote:Rajesh ji,
I do understand the RoC issue. But, that does not stop us from establishing a diplomatic relationship with them, something that we have desisted from doing so far. Let me explain.
The first principle of diplomacy and state-to-state relationship is reciprocity. While we go with hair-splitting analysis of how and why RoC's claim on mainland China would stop us from according a normal diplomatic status to it, PRC has never exhibited faith in such niceties in international relationship or when it comes to India in particular. The duly signed Instrument of Accession by the Maharajah of Jammau & Kashmir has not stopped it from entering into a border agreement with Pakistan to take over a significant 5300 Sq. Km of Indian territory in Shaksgam. If questioned, PRC says that when the J&K dispute is resolved one day, it will deal with the situation then. It talks about J&K being a vestige of history etc as though we don't know that.
SSridhar garu,
That we should change our passive position towards Chinese aggressive posture is something I advocate wholeheartedly.
On the issue of diplomatic recognition for RoC, I have to quibble a bit. Diplomatic recognition of RoC or relationship with RoC means something more than simply the choice of terminology.
The question we would need to ask is:
- what does diplomatic relationship/recognition of RoC means in real terms?
- which message or nuance are we trying to convey?
- what exactly are we recognizing w.r.t. RoC/Taiwan?
- what aspect of PRC's territorial and political sovereignty are we disputing?
The fact of the matter is that a third party like India dealing with two other parties PRC and RoC, can only give recognition to a claim made by any one of them, but cannot formulate our own claims, as and how it pleases us!
If RoC is not making some particular claim, or willing to make it, how can we make a claim on RoC's part?
And if there is no political claim of RoC that we can lend support to, the issue of diplomatic relationship does not rise!
The only issue we can lend full support to is that neither PRC (or for that matter RoC) can resolve the issue of unification through military means, and perhaps in order to avoid military adventurism by the stronger party, one can help the underdog maintain a credible deterrent. This is the position of USA in this matter, though USA has I believe decreased its level of military support to Taiwan in recent years.
Additionally, we can take the position that Taiwanese people are within their rights to go for independence if they so wish for, because PRC has never been able to exert any effective sovereignty over the island (Taiwan), no military presence, no administrative control, no tax collection, etc, and that in fact it is simply a formality. It cannot be considered separatism as such, but rather a formalization of a separate identity. GoI need not say all this in so many words, but semi-official channels can adopt such a position.
In fact, if we think it is in our national interest to see an independent Taiwan, we should go for it and lend the support. Pakistan is going to go into a Jihadic tailspin, that even PRC would not know whom they should supply nukes to be used against India, for they can just as well land in the hands of the Uyghurs, (especially if the whole Jihadi infrastructure in Pakistan gets infiltrated by Indians, as I have also advocated elsewhere).
PRC has already played out its hand against India by proliferating nukes to Pakistan, and soon that strategy would stop bearing fruit. Now it is India's turn to supply nukes to China's neighbors - Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, and also see to it that Japan and South Korea also go nuclear. Vietnam can play the middleman in this.
On the issue of "diplomatic" relations, what we can do is to increase military, economic and political exchanges and cooperation by ramping up Taiwanese presence in India and vice versa.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 18:11
by RajeshA
India should restructure the structures within which we deal with the countries of ASEAN and East Asia.
We should build five "associations" for maximum efficiency:
a) BIMSTEC - India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand
b) East-West Corridor Cooperation Association - India, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, (Nepal?, Sri Lanka?)
c) Malacca Straits Cooperation Association - India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, (Papua New Guinea?, East Timor?)
d) Indo-China Sea Cooperation Association - India, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan
e) Indo-Pacific Dialogue Association - India, Japan, South Korea, (USA?, Australia?)
------------
a) BIMSTEC - this is what we have. Basically it is to include Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in any efforts of India to look eat.
b) East-West Corridor Cooperation Association - This is the place to amplify India's civilizational past, and in addition to everything else, to build a much stronger relationship based on our common past. This however can be done under the premise of a project of building a road and railway corridor extending from India, all the way to Cambodia. Of course it can be extended further, but we do not want to dilute the Dharmic nature of this association.
c) Malacca Straits Cooperation Association - This is to deal with the security of the seaways joining India with the Pacific. Fight against piracy would be here high on the cards, and thus one would have a high level of naval cooperation. Also trade and ports infrastructure would be the focus here.
d) Indo-China Sea Cooperation Association - This is where we build our military strategy for East Asia, which is India-driven. This is going to be our band of brothers. We should be supplying military hardware and training to these countries. Together we can also start common military development programs. We would also be helping these countries with 'nuclear energy'!
e) Indo-Pacific Dialogue Association - This is basically a forum of 'equals', not necessary allies, but who are stake-holders in seeing that China does not become too uppity and thus to formulate ways in how to contain PRC, but also a place where the bigger issue of Asian security can be discussed.
With Laos we can build bilateral relations, and it has not been included in any of the associations.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 23:07
by chaanakya
RajeshA wrote:
India should show Tibet as part of our territory in the maps, with Mt Kailash as its capital!
If the border has not been delineated as yet, what is wrong with showing Tibet as part of India. The border can lie anywhere then!
If I am not mistaken , what GOI is doing now was suggested either by you or some member of BRF. After hearing this news I had exactly this thought and wanted to propose that Tibet be either shown as part of India by getting Instrument of Accession delcared by Parliament in Exile or at least show as a different country while issuing VISAs to high dignitaries visiting from China as well as to ordinary citizens.
Re: India & RoC
Posted: 25 Nov 2012 13:14
by SSridhar
RajeshA wrote:On the issue of diplomatic recognition for RoC, I have to quibble a bit. Diplomatic recognition of RoC or relationship with RoC means something more than simply the choice of terminology.
The question we would need to ask is:
- what does diplomatic relationship/recognition of RoC means in real terms?
- which message or nuance are we trying to convey?
- what exactly are we recognizing w.r.t. RoC/Taiwan?
- what aspect of PRC's territorial and political sovereignty are we disputing?
The fact of the matter is that a third party like India dealing with two other parties PRC and RoC, can only give recognition to a claim made by any one of them, but cannot formulate our own claims, as and how it pleases us!
If RoC is not making some particular claim, or willing to make it, how can we make a claim on RoC's part?
And if there is no political claim of RoC that we can lend support to, the issue of diplomatic relationship does not rise!
The only issue we can lend full support to is that neither PRC (or for that matter RoC) can resolve the issue of unification through military means, and perhaps in order to avoid military adventurism by the stronger party, one can help the underdog maintain a credible deterrent. This is the position of USA in this matter, though USA has I believe decreased its level of military support to Taiwan in recent years.
RajeshA ji,
I understand perfectly the RoC-PRC situation. Establishing diplomatic relationship does not mean that we support each and every claim made (or not made) by that country against another country. We do not have to sit in judgement as to whose claim is legally more valid etc. In fact, there is a significant section of the RoC population who just want to drop claims on mainland China, accept the reality of the existing borders and continue with life. By recognizing PRC, we have not acceded to its 'One-China' policy. We may recognize the principle of 'One-China' without getting involved in matters of detail as to which China should take over the other. We maintain ambiguity. We would cross the bridge when the appropriate time comes. However, that should not stop us from establishing a formal relationship with RoC. Just as we have not done so in the case of Palestine & Israel. We have relationship with both. We have almost a 10 B USD two-way trade with RoC and which is rapidly increasing. We have nothing with Palestine and yet as a matter of principle we have a relationship with them.
PRC & RoC make it difficult for other countries by making simultaneous relationship with both impossible. Of them, RoC will be amenable while PRC will likely break diplomatic relationship with us if we open an embassy in Taipei. This is what we are really afraid of. We don't say that openly and beat about the bush. But, it would be also difficult for PRC to abruptly break with us due to trade, investment and geo-political considerations. We hesitated for a long time, bowing to local sentiments and sensitivities of ME countries, in establishing diplomatic relationship with Israel and yet today, it is our most significant defence partner and ME countries have had no problems at all.
In the case of Tibet, we have repeatedly, and across all political spectrum in India, agreed that Tibet was an autonomous region (TAR) of PRC. So, claiming it for ourselves now, would be akin to declaration of war against China even if we employ the ruse of an in-exile Tibetan government in Dharmashala asking for it. If we are willing to provoke PRC to that extent, opening an Indian embassy in Taipei would be much less eventful.
Now, your questions.
>>what does diplomatic relationship/recognition of RoC means in real terms?
It can be answered by a counter question. What does the non-existence of a diplomatic relationship convey to PRC ? Why should we be so partial to PRC ?
>>which message or nuance are we trying to convey?
Obviously, there is a significant reason as to why PRC does not want other countries to recognize RoC. Or, at least something that matters dearly to PRC ? We should hurt PRC there.
>>what exactly are we recognizing w.r.t. RoC/Taiwan?
Today, we have an office in Taipei which does all functions that an embassy normally does in a foreign country, including issuing visas. We have also allowed an RoC representative office(s) in India which do all diplomatic functions on behalf of RoC. What are we recognizing by this mutual arrangement ? This de-facto recognition will become de-jure. We do not need to explain to anyone which aspects of RoC's foreign policies we are in agreement with and which we are against. There is no such pre-requisite for establishing a full-fledged diplomatic relationship. We recognize RoC for its extant political and geographical borders
>>what aspect of PRC's territorial and political sovereignty are we disputing?
We are not disputing anything here. We don't take sides in their political, territorial and sovereignty disputes just as PRC does not take any sides with its two friends, India & Pakistan, in their festering disputes. We are simply recognizing ground realities just as PoK is a ground reality leading to border adjustments between Pakistan & China in Shaksgam in c. 1962. China has promised to re-negotiate this border agreement with whatever country takes possession of this parcel of land once a final solution is arrived at between India & Pakistan over J&K. We will do likewise with Taiwan or mainland China.
On the issue of "diplomatic" relations, what we can do is to increase military, economic and political exchanges and cooperation by ramping up Taiwanese presence in India and vice versa.
All these must be done. That is precisely why we must also have a diplomatic presence in Taiwan because, such acts could be also taken technically by PRC of supporting insurgency against mainland China.
National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon today downplayed the recent " map row" with China contending that the issue required to be looked at in the perspective of boundary talks which have made progress.
"I think you need to see these things in some perspective. We do have differences on where the boundary lies. We are discussing them. We have made progress in dealing with that," Menon said in reply to questions on China issuing e-passports that show Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as part of China.
The National Security Adviser (NSA) said Chinese documents show their version of the boundary, while Indian documents show "our version of the boundary".
Menon's comments come in the wake of External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid terming the Chinese actions as "unacceptable".
"What has changed? Chinese have a view on where the boundary lies, which is why we are having discussions on the boundary because we have differences on where the boundary is," Menon said after releasing six books on China at the Observer Research Foundation here.
"Chinese chose to put a watermark on their passports which shows the boundaries as they see it. We show our boundary as we see it on visas that we issue. So, what has changed. On our documents we continue to show what we regard as our boundary, they show their claims on their documents," he said.
Menon said India and China have agreed on a three-stage process for settle the boundary issue.
"We are in the process of agreeing on a framework to settle the boundary and the next step, hopefully the third stage, is to actually agree on a boundary. Right now we are at the second stage," he said.
Concerned over a report of the US Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Chinese telecom companies Huawei and ZTE, India will soon take up the matter in the Cabinet Committee of Security headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to examine the potential threat for India.
The US senate committee report, authored by its chairman Mike Rogers said that the risks associated with Huawei’s and ZTE’s provision of equipment to US critical infrastructure could undermine core US national-security interests.
Released by the US government last month, the 60-page report said, “Based on available classified and unclassified information, Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus pose a security threat to the United States and to our systems.”
Raising the issue, Economic Affairs secretary Arvind Mayaram asked the Department of Telecom to bring the matter in CCS for further discussion.
“The proposed meeting will be attended by officials of Finance Ministry, Department of Telecom and security agencies and will examine and may recommend whether a probe needs to be carried out against these two companies or a check should be maintained about their expansion in Indian telecom market,” sources said.
Ministry and security will also look into the US report to assess whether the potential risks envisaged are possible and if any pre-emptive steps are needed to neutralise the threat.
However, both the companies maintained that there was nothing wrong in their operations and that they would be complying with all security norms of the Indian government.
“Huawei has been contributing to the growth of Indian telecom industry for over a decade and has fully complied and cooperated with all the mandatory requirements of India. Going forward we are fully committed to India and ready to provide necessary cooperation to the government,”Huawei spokesperson Suresh Vaidyanathan said.
ZTE spokesperson Cui Liagjun said ZTE India was an Indian-registered company and bound to follow and following all the compliance with the laws of land for more than 13 years since its existence in Indian market.
“Being a global leader in telecom equipments, we are determined to comply by all laws of the country,”Liagjun said.
The US committee in its report had observed that the companies failed to provide evidence that would satisfy any fair and full investigation, although this alone does not prove wrongdoing, it factors into the committee’s conclusions.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 26 Nov 2012 15:22
by vishvak
Not sure if information about first lady of China could be part of managing Chinese threat, other than aspect of changing social scene. link
“If this were the West, one would say she has the perfect requirements for being a leader’s wife: beauty, stage presence, public approval,” said one party intellectual (requirements as per western standards?)
..
Peng, 49, began lowering her own profile as a singer in 2007 .. Once famous for wistfully crooning popular patriotic songs of the 1980s and 1990s, she quit the annual New Year’s show altogether the next year and stopped performing except for at a handful of charity and Communist Party-related events.
..
he became a volunteer for the government’s work on AIDS in 2006 and its ambassador for tobacco control in 2009. Last year, she was appointed ambassador for the fight against tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS for the World Health Organization.
..
Regardless of propaganda, the first lady has taken part in charities for UN, Bill Gates Foundation, etc.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 26 Nov 2012 15:31
by harbans
Chinese have a view on where the boundary lies, which is why we are having discussions on the boundary because we have differences on where the boundary is," Menon said
The NSA is not correct. We have discussions on that border because China has made territories disputed by it's very presence in Tibet. India does not dispute anything really. What actually are we discussing on the border issue with the Chinese? Points in which to place border pickets? If the MacMohan line is disputed, lets dispute the entire stretch corner to corner. Claim Kailash, Mansarover as historically Indian. Tibet by Fa Hseins own recordings of the 5th Century where he says he came across. "5000 people settled, all following the religion of India".
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 26 Nov 2012 20:58
by chaanakya
harbans wrote:
Chinese have a view on where the boundary lies, which is why we are having discussions on the boundary because we have differences on where the boundary is," Menon said
The NSA is not correct. We have discussions on that border because China has made territories disputed by it's very presence in Tibet. India does not dispute anything really. What actually are we discussing on the border issue with the Chinese? Points in which to place border pickets? If the MacMohan line is disputed, lets dispute the entire stretch corner to corner. Claim Kailash, Mansarover as historically Indian. Tibet by Fa Hseins own recordings of the 5th Century where he says he came across. "5000 people settled, all following the religion of India".
I think there is a growing sense among Indians that We should not accept Tibet as part of China. It would take some time before it makes inroads into official thinking., just as Maps idea has got into mainstream.The advantage of making Tibet as disputed region is to question the whole Chinese claims on counterbalance vis a vis their claims to McMohan line and Aksai chin and Arunachal pradesh and Sikkim( that is next in line). We should negotiate by unsettling the situation.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 26 Nov 2012 21:21
by harbans
I think there is a growing sense among Indians that We should not accept Tibet as part of China. It would take some time before it makes inroads into official thinking., just as Maps idea has got into mainstream.The advantage of making Tibet as disputed region is to question the whole Chinese claims on counterbalance vis a vis their claims to McMohan line and Aksai chin and Arunachal pradesh and Sikkim( that is next in line). We should negotiate by unsettling the situation.
Exactly Chanakya Ji. The reason why Nehru accepted Chinese claims over Tibet was he thought appeasement would work. Why he thought appeasement would work and both would live happily after that was..he internally had somewhere reconciled to the cliche that all people want is really Roti, Kapda, chota sa makaan (RKM) and nothing else. Why he succumbed to that RKM tear jerker as national interest is he did not believe in value systems being integral to India's core, thus a lack of sympathy for fellow Tibetan Dharmics vis a vis the Communist Han.
It's complete cowardice and lack of confidence that make us talk on the border that China disputes and not talk about the 300k sq km region of Kailash and Mansarover that is the holiest spot for most Dharmics in India. That thinking has to reverse. The politics of vote bank appeasement has also repercussions in our dealings with the Han presence North of us.
Washington: India does not subscribe to the idea of “isolating” China while dealing with the Asia-Pacific region, and would rather engage the country with which it shares a thriving trade relationship, into more cooperation, Indian envoy Nirupama Rao has said.
“We are not looking at isolating China in this whole narrative of building better relations with the Asia-Pacific,” Rao said while observing that India has always regarded the United States as a Pacific power.
“We see the need to engage China. We see the need to develop more and more habits of cooperation with China,” the Indian Ambassador to the US said responding to a question at a forum yesterday on ‘All eyes on Asia: Perspectives from our allies’ organised by Foreign Policy Initiative, a Washington-based think tank.
Rao, who was India’s Ambassador to China before becoming the Foreign Secretary, however, said India would like to have “rule-based” security architecture in the region that is bedevilled by territorial disputes between China and its neighbouring states like Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines.
“But when it comes to a security architecture for the Asia-Pacific, we also believe that it must be open and inclusive and rule-based, of course, and that we should strengthen dialogue rather than, you know, see confrontation escalating for whatever reason,” Rao said at the discussion forum which was moderated by Congressman Randy Forbes.
The centre of gravity, she said, is now shifting to the Asia-Pacific region. “India has always been a part of that region. We have always had a history of engagement with the countries of the Asia-Pacific,” she said.
Responding to a question on India-US relationship, Rao said it has now evolved into a multi-dimensional one. “The relationship between India and the United States has come to be defined as a strategic partnership today. In fact President Obama referred to it, I think quite appropriately, as an indispensable partnership,” she said.
The Chinese government on Wednesday said its neighbours “should not read too much” into the inclusion of a map in recently issued passports, after the move, this past week, sparked strong reactions in India, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines.
The new electronic chip-fitted passport contains the outline of a map in its pages, which shows Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, and the disputed islands and waters of the South China Sea as Chinese territory.
India has said it would respond to the move by issuing new visas at its Embassy in Beijing that would include a map with boundaries as seen by India. While Vietnam has said it would only issue stapled visas to Chinese applicants because it cannot stamp visas in the passports – which the government said, would be seen as ratifying Chinese claims – the Philippines lodged a strong diplomatic protest.
While Chinese officials said the new passports were issued in May, the move came to light last week after objections voiced by Vietnam and the Philippines. The Foreign Ministry has since tried to play down the move, in a suggestion that it was caught off guard by the strong responses.
On Monday, the Ministry declined to respond to questions from The Hindu on whether China would accept the new Indian visas. However, sources said Beijing had, so far, not raised objections and was allowing citizens to travel to India on them.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told reporters on Wednesday that the “issue of the maps in China's new passports should not be read too much into.” “The aim of China's new electronic passports is to strengthen its technological abilities and make it convenient for Chinese citizens to enter or leave the country,” he said at a regular press briefing, reported Reuters. “The issue of the maps in China's new passports should not be read too much into. China is willing to remain in touch with relevant countries and promote the healthy development of the exchange of people between China and the outside world.”
Maritime cooperation
Separately on Wednesday, the Global Times , a tabloid known for its nationalistic views published by the Communist Party's official People’s Daily newspaper, published a commentary written by Wang Xinlong, a scholar at Tianjin Normal University, calling for India and China to boost maritime cooperation considering their common interests in “security of international shipping lanes, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, marine search and rescue, peacekeeping, and oceanic environmental protection.”
With China increasingly dispatching its ships on anti-piracy missions in the Indian Ocean Region and the Indian Navy conducting exercises in the South China Sea, both countries had a “relationship that can shape the security environment in the whole Indo-Pacific region,” he said. Chinese analysts rarely use the term “Indo-Pacific,” indicating their general reluctance to recognise India as a player in the Asia-Pacific region.
On Wednesday, the Communist Party of China’s International Department organised a conference on “security and development in the Asia-Pacific region” in the context of the leadership transition in China, bringing together strategic experts and former diplomats from 22 countries. Ambassador Rajiv Bhatia, the Director General of the Indian Council of World Affairs and the only representative from India, said he had made the point that security and development in the Indian and Pacific Oceans were interlinked.
With growing anxieties in many of China's neighbours about assertiveness from Beijing in a number of disputes, Mr. Bhatia said several of the Chinese delegates “took a sober position saying that if there are some misperceptions about China, the Chinese side should factor them in and try to address them,” in a suggestion that China might look to do more to assuage concerns about its rise as a new leadership takes over.
The battle games between India and China continue on the disputed boundary between the two neighbours, with the two sides flirting dangerously close to an accidental conflict on the 50th anniversary of the 1962 War.
On October 30, the defence brass of the two countries had some anxious moments after nuclear-armed Chinese fighter aircraft were dispatched to scramble Indian jets flying in the Tawang region of Arunachal Pradesh.
Sources say the incidents were reported by the Indian Air Force (IAF) to the defence ministry and a separate report by India's external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), was also filed on the affair.
Mail Today has in its possession the report on the incident.
Around 3pm on that day, some IAF jets were on a routine sortie mission in Arunachal Pradesh, when they were picked up on their Lhasa-based radar by the Chinese, senior officials privy to the deliberations following the incident said.
Alarmed by the Indian jets, the brass of the PLAAF, the Chinese Air Force, set off a chain reaction. This resulted in two Chinese Sukhoi-27 jets taking off from the Gonggar air base in Tibet within minutes.
After taking off around 3:04 pm, the Chinese aircraft flew southeast towards the direction of the Indian aircraft. There were some anxious moments on the Indian side when the Chinese aircraft were picked up on the radar at 3:29 pm near Cuona.
Officials say the drama lasted for around 50 minutes and just 30 km short of the international boundary- which is few seconds for a supersonic aircraft- the Chinese fighters, realising the IAF jets had no intention of an offensive move, turned back.
Sources said the RAW report, sent to the government on November 9, noted the unusual activity of the Chinese aircraft, which was described as a reaction of the Chinese against Indian activity in the Tawang sector.
While no actual scramble took place, what is scary about the affair is that the radars lost track of the Chinese aircraft twice while the Indian aircraft disappeared from the radar once. In a hostile situation, these incidents can lead to accidental triggers.
Sources told Mail Today, the Chinese Sukhoi-27 was provided tactical radar support by the 42 Radar Regiment of the PLAAF, which is deployed all over Tibet.
The PLAAF is the largest air force in Asia with close to 1,600 aircraft, and the Russian made Sukhoi-27 is a key strike fighter for the force.
China has been ramping up its strategic assets in Tibet for quick reaction in a war situation.
It already has five operational airfields at Gonggar, Pangta, Linchi, Hoping and Gar Gunsa.
The extension of the Qinghai Tibet Railway line to Xigaze and another line from Kashgar to Hotan in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region is also in progress.
Strategically, the Tibet Autonomous Region is pivotal for China's security as it comprises approximately one-fourth of China's land mass, and it continues to have aggressive deployments in the region.
While the new Chinese leadership led by Xi Jinping may not risk a war with India, the chances of a local commander triggering off a conflict cannot be ruled out given the growing intensity of the provocative incidents on the Line of Actual Control.
Mail Today has repeatedly flagged the clear and present danger emanating from China.
What New Delhi needs to do is ensure that a credible mechanism is in place which is operational between the two sides to avoid any accidental action by either side.
The fact is that there is a huge trust deficit between the two countries and a small error at an operational level on the boundary can lead to disastrous consequences for the two countries.
China is “ready to press ahead” with negotiations on the boundary question, the Chinese government has said ahead of Monday's visit of National Security Adviser (NSA) Shivshankar Menon, which has been seen by officials and analysts here as paving the way for more stable ties following the recently concluded leadership transition.
Mr. Menon, who is also the Special Representative on the border talks, will meet his counterpart on the issue, State Councillor Dai Bingguo, here on Monday morning. He is also expected to meet one of the seven members of the newly-selected Politburo Standing Committee — most likely second-ranked Li Keqiang, the anointed Premier, depending on his availability — marking India's first major engagement with the new Chinese leadership.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told The Hindu in a faxed statement when asked if China is of the view that the Special Representatives’ meetings, of which there had been 15 rounds, had “made positive progress.”
“For years, the overall situation in the China-India border area has been peaceful and stable,” he said. “The two countries share a lot of common ground on resolving the boundary issue through peaceful and friendly consultation. China is ready to press ahead with bilateral negotiation on the boundary issue in the spirit of peace, friendship, equal consultation, mutual respect and mutual understanding in a bid to find a solution that is fair, rational and mutually acceptable.”
He said China “attaches great importance” to Mr. Menon’s visit, which was described by officials here as an “informal talk between the Special Representatives” on the boundary question and strategic issues of common concern.
Three top Chinese strategic scholars who focus on China-India relations told The Hindu that they did not see the leadership transition, or for that matter the retirement of Mr. Dai in March, as having any major impact on the bilateral relationship.
Shen Dingli, an influential scholar at the Fudan University, said he “did not see” any impact at all on ties in the wake of the leadership change and Mr. Dai's expected retirement at the Parliament session next year, when new State Councillors will be appointed to serve in the cabinet led by Mr. Li.
Han Hua, a leading South Asia scholar at Peking University, said next week’s meeting would see both countries look to “reassure each other [regarding] the continuity and improvement of Sino-Indian relations.” The impact of the leadership change, she said, would be “not that much.” “Small frictions will still be there, but in general stable relation with India is the main theme in China’s India policy.”
Hu Shisheng, a South Asia scholar at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), said he did not expect much change on the boundary question following the retirement of Mr. Dai, who has been the Special Representative since the current mechanism was introduced a decade ago. “If there [will] be any progress in the future,” he said, “it could be [because of] accepting and respecting each others’ Line of Control claim.”
Vice-Admiral Satish Soni, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Naval Command, on Friday expressed the hope that the expansion of the Chinese Navy would contribute to maritime security operations in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
Talking to journalists on board naval vessel Sharda ahead of the annual Navy Day celebrations, the Vice-Admiral said it was clearly a good development for the Chinese that they had been able to refurbish an old aircraft carrier procured from the USSR and make it operational, with J-15 aircraft reportedly taking off from its deck.
“They have said that they will use it for training and research. The footprint of the Chinese Navy has been increasing as a result of their economic development… They are also contributing to anti-piracy tasks. We hope as their Navy develops, it contributes to the overall maritime security operations of the Indian Ocean Region and its neighbourhood,” he said.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 01 Dec 2012 21:08
by shyamd
Indo - Jap counter terror committee meeting was held in Tokyo on6th nov. Amongst the things mentioned - India expressed concern about PRC supplying the Maoists.
This article details the growth of Chinese Maritime forces i.e. its coast guard. It is noteworthy that all the recent clashes involving China, Taiwan and Japan have involved their non-naval forces.
Apparently, 12 Chinese cutters from China Maritime Surveillance (CMS) were sortied to the disputed area in the East China Sea in mid-September (Global Times, September 19). This prompted a major counter deployment by the Japan Coast Guard, such that half of its vessels were said to be deployed to the disputed islands—a truly extraordinary set of measures on both sides (Asahi Shimbun, September 19).
To make this “coast guard crisis” even more complex given the somewhat bewildering array of large vessels in such a small area, Taiwanese coast guard vessels appeared on the scene and engaged Japanese cutters in a “battle” with water cannons
Re: Managing Chinese Threat
Posted: 03 Dec 2012 18:58
by RajeshA
I think one thing we all can do is to start calling People's Republic of China as Communist Chinese Empire.
An Empire denotes peoples brought together under one political master through force. And an Empire always falls apart!
Viewing the rapid modernization of Chinese Navy as a "major concern", navy chief Admiral D K Joshi on Monday made it clear that India will protect its interests in the disputed South China Sea, even if it means sending forces there.
"Yes you are right. The modernization (of Chinese Navy) is truly impressive... It is a actually a major major cause of concern for us, which we continuously evaluate and work out our options and our strategies," he told a press conference.
The Navy Chief was replying to a question on contingencies in South China Sea to protect Indian interests there and impression about the Chinese Navy's modernization.
Answering a volley of questions about South China Sea over which India had a tiff with China last year, he said although India's presence in that maritime region was not on "very very frequent" basis, it had interests like free navigation and exploitation of natural resources there.
"Not that we expect to be in those waters very very frequently, but when the requirement is there for situations where country's interests are involved, for example ONGC Videsh, we will be required to go there and we are prepared for that. Are we holding exercises for that nature, the short answer is yes," Joshi said.
Talking about Indian interests in the South China Sea, he said the first of it included freedom of navigation.
"Not only us, but everyone is of the view that they have to be resolved by the parties concerned, aligned with the international regime, which is outlined in UNCLOS ( United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), that is our first requirement," he said.
National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon said on Tuesday India and China had made “considerable progress” on the border dispute as both countries reviewed the past decade of negotiations on the boundary question over two days of talks here.
Mr. Menon and Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo, his counterpart as the Special Representative on the talks, have prepared a “common understanding” report reviewing the negotiations, which will be submitted to the leaders of both countries. The exercise is part of an effort to ensure continuity in the talks following the retirement of Mr. Dai in March, as China completes a sweeping once-in-ten-year leadership change.
“What we tried to do in the common understanding is to say where we are today,” Mr. Menon told reporters. {This is good as the new PRC leadership cannot go back to square one and stat the process all over again} “We found, overall, when we looked at the relationship and discussions on the boundary that we have already made considerable progress”.
Both sides “sat together and confirmed” the common understanding on the talks and will report it to their respective leaders. “We have increased the area of understanding between us steadily, thanks to the SR process," he said.
Mr. Menon and Mr. Dai on Monday held wide-ranging talks, not only on the border but looking at the overall relationship in the context of the leadership transition in China and wider strategic issues of common concern. On Tuesday morning, Mr. Menon met with top Chinese leader Wu Bangguo, who is the head of the National People’s Congress (NPC), or Parliament, and served as the second-ranked leader in the previous Politburo Standing Committee that stepped down at last month’s Party Congress.
Boundary talks
Mr. Menon described his two-day visit as “useful, good and timely” and aimed at “taking stock” of the relationship. “We have handled the relationship well, the border is peaceful and we have made progress towards a settlement,” he said. “There is work still to be done, both sides recognise that, and we have not allowed the boundary to prevent all-round development of relations”.
After 15 rounds of talks between the SRs, India and China are currently in the second of an agreed-upon three-stage process, which involves the complicated task of agreeing to a framework to settle the boundary question in all sectors. Analysts in India and China say both countries have made little progress since 2005, when the first stage was completed with the signing of an agreement on political parameters and guiding principles.
Asked about a media report on Sunday which said that a joint review conducted by both countries had found there remained serious differences even on interpreting the 2005 agreement – suggesting that the talks had made little or no progress through the past decade – Mr. Menon said the report was “pure speculation”.
“Most of it is factually untrue,” he said. “Most of it is false". He said both countries “have moved beyond the 2005 agreement”. “We both have an understanding on it,” he said. “We might have differences on one or two pieces. We have moved beyond what we have done then.”
Navy chief's comments
Mr. Menon played down the comments made by Navy Chief Admiral D.K. Joshi on Monday stating the Navy was prepared to go to the South China Sea to protect India’s economic interests. He said the media had "manufactured" a story by getting the Navy Chief to comment on the matter. ONGC Videsh is currently involved in three oil exploration blocks in the South China Sea, whose waters and islands are claimed by China and several other countries.
“When you look at the range of India-China engagement, when you look at the fact at how peaceful the border is, when you look at the fact that we have made progress even on the boundary settlement discussions, when you look at the kind of congruence we have on several international issues… then you get a more balanced picture of relationship, of its potential, for us, for them, for the region, for the world, that it can actually do good together”, he said. {This is excellent diplomacy by GoI provided, a BIG provided, we are paying back the Chinese in the very Panchsheel-like lullaby while preparing for a war. Things are not rosy like what SS Menon is saying but if this is the strategy/tactic, it shows maturity in Indian realpolitik posture}
The Chinese side, Mr. Menon said, did not raise the issue in Tuesday’s talks. The recent spat between both countries on passports also did not figure in the discussions. China had angered several of its neighbours after including a map in newly-issued passports, displaying Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and the South China Sea as Chinese territory. India responded by issuing new visas in its Embassy in Beijing that displayed an Indian map with the borders as seen by India. That China had appeared to quietly accept the visas had suggested the row had blown over, Indian officials said.
Monday’s wide-ranging talks also touched upon the issue of trans-border rivers. China’s proposed plans to build dams on the Brahmaputra have raised concerns in India. So far, China has built one hydropower project in Zangmu in Tibet, which Chinese officials say will not affect downstream flows as it is a run-of-the-river project.
“We are exchanging data on trans-border rivers, and that we would like to expand what we are doing,” Mr. Menon said. “We are also measuring flows. So far so good; so far the flows they are what they were. The question is if they have a structure that can control flows. So far, it doesn’t exist. They say ‘nothing that we are doing is going to affect the flows’. They are sharing data with us.”
China is attempting to corner supply of rough diamonds by pushing for direct deals with African countries and thus posing a threat to the nation's gems and jewellery trade, a study released by industry body Assocham said.
"With China constantly pushing for direct deals with African governments, attempting to corner supply of rough diamonds, its time for government to be alert," Chairperson of Assocham's Gujarat Council Bhagyesh Soneji said while releasing the study.
"We should go for enhancing barter trade with Africa. We should have a channel or escrow account through which trade could be channelized, it would be very beneficial," she said.
If trends are anything to go by, Surat, which accounts for about 95% of the world's diamond trade, may loose its crown of 'The Diamond City' to China, according to the study.
