Saturday, January 14, 2006

meanwhile, more sucking up to the chinese

jan 13th

anantha minces no words.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: M

The Financial Express,  14 January 2006.
Edits & Columns
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Missing statecraft in the Chinese theatre

India's relationship with Beijing is marked by naivete and a singular lack
of coherence

V Anantha Nageswaran

  On a rain-swept holiday morning in Singapore on January 10, I woke up to
see two headlines on the Bloomberg news wire: 'India, China need to
cooperate on energy, Aiyar says' and 'Indian software companies risk edge by
training Chinese rivals.' To any Indian with vivid memories of Chinese
backstabbing in 1962, dealings with this nation, that has grand ambitions
and makes little effort to hide these, would be a matter of deliberation,
caution and circumspection. But, political parties—across the divide—have
bent over backwards to appease China in the incredibly naive hope that this
would make China reciprocate. China does reciprocate, and how?
• It has, together with Pakistan, worked systematically over the past two
years to block India's attempt to win a permanent seat at the UN Security
Council
• It has refused to unequivocally recognise the accession of Sikkim to India
• It has made inroads into South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation
while preventing India's entry into the East Asian Summit
• It has stirred the pot on India's nuclear deal with the US by attempting
to strike a similar deal with Pakistan so that non-proliferation zealots in
the US would drive a stake through the heart of the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Internationally, it has paid little heed to concerns about terrorism and
nuclear proliferation by continuously supplying nuclear and missile
technology to Pakistan and North Korea and by propping unsavoury regimes in
the world by purchasing their energy assets.

• Past experience points to incompetent handling of affairs involving China
• Mani Shankar Aiyar's China overtures appear to be the cry of the
vanquished
• The need of the hour is a coherent stra-tegy to deal with the middle
kingdom

In an article, 'A rise that is not so win-win', published in the
International Herald Tribune on November 15, 2005, the award-winning author
of the book, The River Runs Black, that shone a spotlight on China's
alarmingly rapid environmental deterioration, and the director of Asian
Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations in the US, had this to say about
China's peaceful rise: "...But if you look more carefully, here is what you
see: a rising power exploiting other countries' natural resources, spoiling
the global environment, making economic deals but looking away from serious
government mistreatment of its citizens and not delivering on promises."
Brazil has expressed regret, explicitly, for rushing to embrace China as a
market economy. It has seen dumping of Chinese manufactured goods in return
for export of precious raw materials from Brazil, while promised investments
from China have failed to materialise.
It is in this milieu and context that India's minister for petroleum is
calling for cooperation with China. It is not a gracious concession of the
victorious but a cry of the vanquished. China has been outbidding India in
most foreign countries where petroleum reserves are available to be
exploited. China has, therefore, no reason to collaborate with India. The
Indian minister has charged that Goldman Sachs, that managed the sale of
PetroKazakhstan assets, had changed the rules of bidding in Kazakhstan after
the bidding started, which led to India's bid being rejected.
Is it too much to expect his ministry to inform the honourable minister that
the country-head of Goldman Sachs China is the daughter of Jiang Zemin?
Fortune magazine, in its December 26, 2005 issue, profiles a Texas-based
billionaire, Richard Rainwater. This gentleman worries that "a coalition of
Communist and Islamic States might decide to stop selling their precious
crude to Americans any day now." It is this instinct for self-preservation
that has made them rich and it is this very instinct that India so willingly
barters away for nothing. In fact, India expects this very coalition of
communists and Islamic states to help meet its present and future energy
needs!
India needs a coherent China strategy. India's response to China has simply
ranged from fear to adulation to capitulation, tinged all the time with
naive hopes of a simpleton. Governance internally and statecraft externally
are the urgent need of the hour. Of course, it is not going to be easy for
the Prime Minister, who is running a coalition government whose constituents
fight battles with each other in states while co-existing at the Centre.
They are not accountable. Further, the previous government had set a bad
precedent for the Prime Minister. It gave away its trump card (Tibet) in
return for nothing and encouraged terrorism on Indian soil with its exchange
of terrorists for hostages in Kandahar. Consequently, terrorists strike at
will and at civilians everywhere and we celebrate our ability to wipe the
attacks off our memories faster.
His communist allies are not going to help either. Jerry Rao, a columnist in
this newspaper's sister publication, The Indian Express, alleges that Indian
communists are on the payrolls of Chinese capitalists ('Year of Inflexion',
IE, January 2, 2006). They return from a trip to China and start demanding
unionisation of IT-enabled services. Yet, if this Prime Minister cannot put
India first, both in domestic economic and in foreign policies, future Prime
Ministers are neither likely to be willing nor able to do anything about it.
The two major parties, by current reckoning, are unlikely to muster a
combined majority in the next Parliament. A government led by a motley crowd
of parties would be focused on self-preservation and self-aggrandisement,
more than the present one.
A safe and secure state is a minimum requirement for its citizens to pursue
gainful economic activity without insecurity. That is the least governments
in India could do for its citizens, who are probably the most resourceful on
earth. Otherwise, 8% growth rates would be unsustainable. It is what our
enemies are seeking and that is what our governments are busy delivering to
them, for now.
The writer is the founder-director of Libran Asset Management (Pte) Ltd,
Singapore. These are his personal views.

URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=114412


2 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
indusAquarius said...

China is thinking of supplying nuclear reactors (also known in Chinese circles as Nuclear bombs)to the Failed State of Pakistan.

Meanwhile, her highness' pet poodle, the clean and honest (trumpet: tan tana tan tan... taaa daaa) Mr. Manmohan Singh is busy calling China India's "brother".

Eerily reminds one of another person who was also clean and honest and the pet poodle of another gori (lady Mountbatten) and who considered the Chini's the brothers of the Hindi's!

Nice article from Claude Arpi in pioneer (http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3)

======================================
Brothers or competitors?

Claude Arpi

It is customary to start the year with good wishes and hope that the New Year will be more harmonious than the previous one. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh followed this tradition when he wrote to his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao: "The fast developing relationship (between India and China) transcends the bilateral dimension and is an important determinant for the peace and stability, as well as development and prosperity of Asia and the world."

Mr Manmohan Singh added that friendship and cooperation between India and China "is our shared aspiration, which is also in consonance with our common long-term and strategic vision of the relationship." He even agreed to elevate the Sino-Indian dialogue to a "Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity".

A few weeks earlier at the ASEAN Conference, Mr Manmohan Singh had taken the old Nehruvian stand; when asked if China and India were competitors, he replied: "We are brothers." History has shown that since India's independence and the advent of Communism in China, the two nations have not really been 'brothers'. Nevertheless Indian leaders like to continue the old litany. A look at a few hard facts does not paint such a rosy picture. One could even say that dark clouds seem to loom over the relations.

Take the situation in Nepal: India has reluctantly extended the Transit Treaty with Nepal by three months and this after two difficult rounds of negotiations. Nepal was taken by surprise as it had expected an automatic renewal. The short extension was justified by the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs as giving time to both governments for a complete review of certain clauses in the treaty. New Delhi wanted to look at the "modalities, routes, conditions of transit, and customs arrangements as contained in the protocol and memorandum to the treaty".

Technically, no objection can be raised. But will arm-twisting really help Indo-Nepalese relationship? In the meantime China's 'strategic' partnership with the land-locked Kingdom is growing with each passing day. The greatest blow for India was the recent Chinese supply of 18 trucks of arms and ammunition that included 4.2 million rounds of 7.62 mm rifle ammunition, 80,000 high explosive grenades and 12,000 AK rifles.

Obviously, New Delhi, and more particularly the Ministry of Defence, is not happy with the development, but they have to look in their own backyard to find the reason. The uncompromising attitude of South Block under the leadership of Mr Natwar Singh, himself greatly influenced by the Indian Marxists, has pushed Delhi-Kathmandu relations to the brink. The Indian Government has been insisting on the re-establishment of democracy in Nepal before discussing any other matter (while closing its eyes to the non-democratic systems in China and Pakistan).

The King had no choice, but to seek Beijing support to fight the Maoists. Apparently, New Delhi urged Beijing not to fish in troubled waters, but to no avail. Unlike Delhi, Beijing looks at its interests first. The refusal to 'automatically' prolong the Transit Treaty for three years has its root in the new closeness of the Kingdom with India's 'foe', Pakistan, and India's 'brother', China.

It is ironical that the anti-King parties in Nepal are also deeply disturbed by the arms supplied to the Royal Nepalese Army. In an article, 'China: Friend or foe' in the Kathmandu Post, Siddhi Ranjitkar, writes: "By supplying lethal arms and ammunition to the autocratic regime of Nepal, China has darkened its own red face. The weapons would certainly be used against the freedom and democracy-loving Nepalis. China has already blackened its image by destroying hundreds of thousands of monasteries, killing and expelling tens of thousands of Tibetan monks in 1960s, and suppressing civil liberties and human rights in Tibet and Mainland China."

The writer goes a step further: He points out Beijing's double standards in its foreign policy: "China never seems to forget the atrocities wreaked upon them by the Japanese soldiers during Second World War. It objected to the Japanese Prime Minister's annual visit to the monuments made in memory of the soldiers killed in the war. Do the Chinese authorities want Nepalese to develop a similar contempt for them by supplying lethal weapons to this government?" So much for the peaceful rise of China!

Whichever way one may look at the recent developments, the situation is very grim. Unfortunately, the state of affairs is not brighter eastwards. On December 28, it was reported from the Bhutanese capital Thimphu that "the Chinese are in Bhutan - its soldiers are building roads and bridges deep inside the country".

The crossing of more than 200 Chinese soldiers into Bhutanese territory in mid-November has set off alarm bells in Thimphu and Delhi. On November 13, Chinese soldiers entered Bhutan's northern district of Paro and advanced 20 km inside the Kingdom of the Dragon. The People's Liberation Army later claimed that heavy snowfall in Tibet forced them to trespass into Bhutan. But they also infiltrated uninhabited remote places such Haa, Boomtang and Wangdi Phudrang. Further, pucca bridges are alleged to have been built in Paro and Haa districts.

Bhutan has a 470-km unfenced border with China and considers the unrequested presence of the Red Army in its territory as a violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese border treaty of peace and tranquillity. When the matter came up before Bhutan's National Assembly, Foreign Minister Khandu Wangchuk promised the House to take up the subject with the Chinese. Later, the Chinese told the Bhutanese that "they were over-reacting and that the roads were being built as part of the economic development programmes for western China".

In a recent article, the Bhutanese newspaper Kuensel wrote: "There are chances that the Chinese might build more roads further into our territory and gradually claim the land as theirs since they have their roads on our territory." Thimphu probably has in mind the Aksai Chin road in Ladakh, linking Tibet to Xinjiang, which was built by the PLA in the mid-1950s.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran may have a dialogue with Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Wu Dawei on Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity, but the fact is that progress on border talks has been negligible. A new round of talk is scheduled for end January in Kerala. The Chinese Ambassador believes that: "Dialogues on a houseboat would provide the ideal setting." It is doubtful. In this context, it is interesting to note the comments made by Rear Admiral Yang Yi, Director of the PLA's Institute of Strategic Studies: "We are quite smart enough to find some solution beneficial to both sides." It is not sure if the Indian side is smart enough and will not give away Aksai Chin against recognition of Arunachal as part of Indian territory.

The Bhutanese rightly worried. One occupies one's neighbour's territory, builds a road in it, and then tries to find a solution "beneficial to all". Very simple! Another worry for India is the Qinghai-Tibet Railway, set for trial operation on July 1, 2006. Chinese Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan said in Beijing last week that the railway would be completed one year before schedule, "an overall victory of a decisive battle".

An overall victory for whom? Certainly not for the people of Tibet who will be annihilated by waves of Han colonisers just as Inner Mongolia has been and Xinjiang is in the process of being! Certainly not for India, which will have a railway line less than a day's drive from its border, particularly when it knows that the railway line could be extended to Nepal! Year 2006 does look quite ominous!