Talking Candidly to China

Nitin A Gokhale, 

Editor & Senior Fellow, VIF

Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears to have gone beyond the cautious approach usually advocated by the tightly-knit ‘China group’, an informal team of Sinologists in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in dealing with Beijing during his recently concluded China tour. In reminding the Chinese that there are “complex,” issues “holding back the relations,” Mr Modi was more than candid. He said in presence of Premier Li Keqiang: “I stressed the need for China to reconsider its approach on some of the issues that hold us back from realizing full potential of our partnership. I suggested that China should take a strategic and long term view of our relations.” Usually, Indian leaders do not speak with such frankness, largely preferring to be diplomatic, an approach preferred by the MEA mandarins.

The Prime Minister then reiterated his desire for a quick solution during his address at the Tsinghua University. There he said: “Yet, if we have to realise the extraordinary potential of our partnership, we must also address the issues that lead to hesitation and doubts, even distrust, in our relationship. First, we must try to settle the boundary question quickly."

Even the joint statement reflected a subtle shift in how New Delhi and Beijing look at the boundary issue now. Part of the statement said: “The two sides affirmed that an early settlement of the boundary question serves the basic interests of the two countries and should be pursued as a strategic objective by the two governments. Bearing in mind the overall bilateral relations and the long-term interests of the two peoples, the two sides are determined to actively seek a political settlement of the boundary question.” Premier Li, in his written interview to India Today just before Prime Minister Modi’s trip began, also spoke about the need to speedily settle the border. “The boundary question is left over from history, and is a difficult question in bilateral relations. To settle the question as early as possible is the historical responsibility that falls on both governments...” The earlier Chinese stand was 'let's leave the resolution of the border to future generations and concentrate on improving our relationship in other fields.'

Li's statement is also an important shift from what was said in Bejing in October 2013 when the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA) was signed. That time, both sides were mostly talking about keeping the border quiet and finalising the framework for the boundary settlement. Part of the joint statement that time said: “Special Representatives, who have been charged with exploring a framework of settlement of the India-China boundary question, were encouraged by the two leaders to continue their efforts in that direction. Peace and tranquility on the India-China border was recognized as an important guarantor for the development and continued growth of bilateral relations.”

Another instance of the Prime Minister’s bold initiative was his decision to allow e-visas to Chinese citizens wishing to travel to India. Mr Modi appears to have taken a calculated risk in this matter although the security agencies and even the MEA appeared to have had reservations on this move. The Prime Minister has been criticised by hardliners for not linking the decision of e-visa to the resolution of ‘stapled visa’ that the Chinese occasionally issue to residents of J&K and Arunachal Pradesh. However the PMO looks to have decided to put greater emphasise on people-to-people contact between India and China. Pointing out that “Indians and Chinese don't know each other well, much less understand each other,” Mr Modi has taken a big step forward in correcting this shortcoming.

Moreover, by reaffirming the demand for clarification of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) India is adopting a similar tactic as the Chinese who stick to their stand irrespective of the response from the other side. Prime Minister Modi had made this suggestion for the first time last September when President Xi Jingping was in India. Beijing has not responded to the idea yet. By once again raising the point, New Delhi has now put the ball in China's court. If the Chinese don't respond then the border talks will continue to stagnate.

Similarly, for the first time both sides have acknowledged their role in the larger international context. "The leaders agreed that simultaneous re-emergence of India and China as two major powers in the region and the world offers a momentous opportunity for realisation of the Asian Century. They noted that India-China bilateral relations are poised to play a defining role in the 21st Century in Asia and indeed, globally."

In conclusion, a more confident New Delhi and an already assertive Beijing, currently led by two strong and nationalist leaders are willing to play a more proactive role in world affairs, their divergent views on some issues notwithstanding.

---

Published Date: 20^th May 2015, Image Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in

India-China Border Talks: No Progress to Show

Existing Agreements need to be Diligently Implemented

Brig Gurmeet Kanwal, 

Visiting Fellow, VIF

The Special Representatives of the Prime Ministers of India and China met on March 23, 2015 at New Delhi to discuss the resolution of the territorial dispute. This was the 18^th round of border talks that have made little progress so far. A typically bland statement was issued by the Ministry of External Affairs after the talks: “The Special Representatives continued the discussions to reach a mutually acceptable Framework for resolution of the Boundary Question on the basis of the Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles.”

The Special Representatives noted that the interaction between the border management forces had been growing. They said such contacts should be expanded as “these constitute important confidence building measures for maintaining peace and tranquility in the border areas.”

The two sides should have accorded the highest priority to discussing the measures that are necessary to give practical effect to the implementation of the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA), signed during then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s trip to Beijing in October 2013, and its previous avatars so that the occurrence of destabilising incidents along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) can be minimised. This is important because of the recent instances of Chinese military assertiveness along the LAC.

The BDCA commits the two sides to “periodic meetings” of military and civilian officers and to exchange information – including information about military exercises, aircraft movements, demolition operations and unmarked mines. It emphasises the avoidance of border patrols “tailing” each other and recommends that the two sides “may consider” establishing a hot-line between military headquarters in both countries.

A close examination of the BDCA reveals that it falls substantially short of removing the anomalies and impracticalities of similar agreements that have not worked well in the past. These include the Agreement on Maintaining Peace and Tranquillity Along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas, September 7, 1993; the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas, November 29, 1996; the Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, April 11, 2005; the Protocol on Modalities for the Implementation of Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control in India-China Border Areas, April 11, 2005; and, the Agreement on Establishment of a Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs, January 17, 2012.

The Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and Tibet is quite different from the disputed 4,056 km-long international boundary. The term LAC implies de facto military control over respective areas and came into use after the 1962 border war. However, the LAC is yet to be physically demarcated on the ground and delineated on military maps. The un-delineated LAC is a destabilising factor as major incidents such as the Nathu La clash of 1967 and the Wang Dung stand-off of 1986 can recur. In fact, the two sides have failed to even exchange maps showing their perception of the LAC except in the least contentious Central Sector, that is, the Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh borders with Tibet. Despite the lofty rhetoric of all the agreements, it has not been possible for India to withdraw a single soldier from the LAC so far. It clearly shows how intractable the challenge is.

There are frequent incidents of Chinese transgression of the LAC both in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. Both sides habitually send patrols up to the point at which the LAC runs in their perception. On many occasions in the recent past, Indian and Chinese patrols have met face-to-face. Such meetings have an element of tension built into them and, despite the best of military training, the possibility of an armed clash can never be ruled out. An armed clash that stretches over several days and in which there are heavy casualties can lead to a larger border incident that may not remain localised.

This is the reason why it is critically important to demarcate the LAC on the ground and map. Once that is done, the inadequacy of recognisable terrain features can be overcome by exploiting GPS technology to accurately navigate up to the agreed and well-defined LAC on the ground and even unintentional transgressions can be avoided.

Chinese intransigence in exchanging maps showing the alignment of the LAC in the western and the eastern sectors, while talking of high-sounding guiding principles and parameters to resolve the territorial and boundary dispute, is neither understandable nor condonable. It can only be characterised as an attempt to put off resolution of the dispute “for future generations to resolve”, as Deng Xiao Ping had famously told Rajiv Gandhi in 1988. China’s obvious negotiating strategy is to resolve the territorial dispute with India only when the Chinese are in a much stronger position in terms of comprehensive national strength so that they can dictate terms.

Fresh efforts need to be made to fine-tune the operationalisation of the Agreement on Establishment of a Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs, signed on January 17, 2012. The agreed measures include regular consultations and flag meetings or telephone and video conferences during emergencies along the LAC. The mechanism was expected to help prevent misunderstanding between the two countries arising from incursions into each other's territory. The joint mechanism was also expected to study ways to strengthen exchanges and cooperation between military personnel on the ground.

None of this has obviously happened as serious Chinese incursions continue and tensions continue to persist. This has been evident in recent incidents of reckless behaviour. The deep transgression by PLA troops at Depsang near Daulat Beg Oldie in May 2013 could have led to an armed clash if the PLA had not backed off. In September 2014, even as President Xi Jinping was being entertained by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the bank of the Sabarmati River in Ahmedabad, Chinese and Indian troops were once again engaged in a tense face-off at Chumar in Ladakh.

The BDCA has failed to address the basic issue that is the root cause of most transgressions and patrol face-offs, which is the non-demarcation of the LAC, which leads to varying perceptions about where it runs. As such, it is merely another “feel good’ agreement that has not brought the two sides any closer to a final settlement of the territorial dispute and has achieved virtually nothing substantive to further even the immediate necessity of improving border management. Finally, it is in India’s interest to strive for early resolution of the territorial dispute so that there is only one military adversary to contend with. It is in this direction that the Government of India must firmly nudge the Chinese leadership during future meetings of the political interlocutors.

---

Published Date: 6^th April 2015, Image source: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

Indian PM’s China Visit: In Pursuit of Peace Along the Borders

Brig (Retd) Vinod Anand, 

Senior Fellow, VIF

It is rare that a summit between two countries is held twice in the same year. Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s visit to Beijing came only about five months since their meeting in New Delhi in May this year. What were the compelling circumstances that might have driven Dr. Singh to proceed for another summit? It can be easily perceived that the visit was driven by domestic political factors and his desire to further engage the new political leadership of China. He wanted to have a last shot at improving relations with Pakistan and China before he retires from politics as the case seems to be when India goes for general elections in 2014. He also advanced his summit with Russia that was due in end November or early December. The only possible regional and international context could be that the Emperor of Japan would be visiting India in end November (a very significant visit since it is not common for the Emperor to undertake such visits) and therefore the visit to Beijing, most likely the last one, could also be interpreted as a kind of balancing exercise. It also needs to be remembered that Dr Singh had also a meeting with US President Barack Obama in end September and some of the agreements concluded with Washington especially on defence cooperation may have caused consternation among the Chinese leadership.

The Joint Statements issued at the end of summits are also, in some ways, a good barometer of what transpired during the meeting. What is included in the joint statement could be as important or even more significant as what is left out. This time the joint statement was somewhat pithy compared to the previous one in May. While the May summit covered a broad expanse of the issues, this time it was largely restricted to bilateral issues with limited reference to the regional and international issues. But more than the joint statement, it was Manmohan Singh’s address at the Central Party School in Beijing that underlined the philosophical underpinnings behind mutual Sino-Indian engagement. However, that does not mean that there were no practical considerations for his visit. With an eye on coming elections, Singh was more keen to address some of the contentious bilateral issues like maintaining peace and tranquillity along the LAC, stapled visas, sharing of river waters, and concerns about the ever increasing trade imbalance with China.

From the Indian perspective, the single most important achievement of the visit has been the signing of Border Development Cooperation Agreement (BDCA). There are some thinkers of the conservative school of thought who feel that there are many ambiguities in some of the clauses of BDCA agreement and how will this agreement be of any practical use when the previous agreements of 1993, 1996 and even 2005 have not been able to maintain peace and tranquillity along the LAC. On the other hand, largely the official perspective is that it is a satisfactory agreement and it would be conducive to avoiding incidents between Indian and Chinese armed forces along the border/LAC. It is also being said that the BDCA was signed despite the opposition to it by some quarters of the PLA which is being perceived as becoming somewhat more assertive in the current power configuration in China.

Holding of the much stalled joint counter terrorism exercise between both the militaries in November is another positive step towards building mutual confidence. Regular defence exchanges would also promote military to military relationship.

Other than the BDCA, India could not get much satisfaction from China on remaining issues. Though the MOU on Strengthening Cooperation on Trans-Border Rivers was signed yet it does not really address Indian concerns regarding building of dams on the upper reaches of Brahmaputra/Yarlung Tsangpo River. Yes, the only saving grace was that period of flow of rivers on which hydrological data would be shared has been expanded. Another point on which India can draw limited succour from the MOU is that both sides agreed to ‘exchange views on other issues of mutual interest’. Further, there is recognition by China that ‘trans-border rivers and related natural resources and the environment are assets of immense value to the socio-economic development of all riparian countries’. But so far China has not concluded any agreement with any down-stream nation whether in South East Asia mainland or Central Asian Republics on sharing of river waters. There is a general belief that China is unlikely enter into any river waters sharing agreement with India or for that matter any other country any time soon.

A sore point with India has been the issue of stapled visas to its citizens hailing from Arunachal Pradesh. Raking up of this controversy just before Dr. Singh’s visit also prevented India from reaching an accord with China over liberalised visa regime for Chinese citizens visiting India. Given the past and current trajectory of connected events and issues, there is a general understanding that China is unlikely to change its stance. A measure like disallowing liberal visas to Chinese is unlikely to affect China in any substantial way. However, as a riposte the much ritualised mention of Tibet as part of China or what is referred to as ‘One China policy’ has been absent from the joint statement this time like it was in the May Summit and earlier summits of 2011 and 2010. Though such an omission does not mean that India has fundamentally changed its policy yet the perception is that this could be used as an indirect pressure point.

Also, not much headway was made with China on India’s concerns about rising trade imbalance with Beijing. India has been looking for some major investments by China in India’s infrastructure sector and more access to Indian IT and pharmaceutical sectors exports to Beijing. However, the forthcoming India-China Strategic Economic Dialogue in November/December 2013 is expected to go into the connected issues and promote a balanced growth of trade through ‘specific projects and initiatives’.

Further, the burgeoning trade deficit with China also moves India to look at China’s proposal for a bilateral Regional Trade Arrangement (RTA) very critically as under the current circumstances it is unlikely to benefit India. Similarly, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is also being viewed as another version of RTA by India though eventually it may join the grouping after some tough negotiations. Another emerging economic grouping in Asia-Pacific is the American-led Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is being offered as alternative or in addition to RCEP. However, some of the clauses of TPP are very stringent and thus it may not be viewed by developing economies like India as growth friendly.

The question of establishing a BCIM (Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar) Economic Corridor was for the first time discussed in the May 2013. In the earlier years, it was a Track II initiative that did not gain much traction. India has concerns about both security and economic issues as the proposed corridor would pass through some of the sensitive North Eastern states of India. Such a corridor is not expected to be realised in a hurry though the economic benefits especially to Manipur and south Assam may outweigh any perceived security concerns.

The regional issues, especially the evolving situation in Afghanistan was absent from the joint statement this time while in the last summit two paras of the joint statement were devoted to the same. The joint dialogue between China and India on Afghanistan was for the first time started this year with meetings of high level officials and further discussed during the May 2013 summit. Though India and China share many concerns about post-2014 Afghan scenario yet that does not mean that China has stopped looking at Afghanistan through Pakistan’s prism. As mentioned earlier, India hopes to moderate Pakistan’s approach to Afghanistan through its engagement with China. And China is also taking a broader perspective on the evolving scenario in Afghanistan and is engaging many regional powers and Afghanistan’s neighbours for ushering in peace and stability in the war-torn country.

Overall, Singh’s visit could be said to be moderately successful. The visit was perhaps designed to convey a larger political message that without peace along the borders there would be no end to turbulent relationship between the two nations and the prospects of an Asian Century would remain elusive. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s remarks at the Central Party School need to be studied with the above aspects in mind.