Is there any point of the PM's China visit?

My article Is there any point of the PM's China visit? is posted in Rediff.com.

If the 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2012 border agreements have been unable to check Chinese aggressiveness, how can a fifth one succeed? asks Claude Arpi.
The Fifth India-China Strategic Dialogue was held in Delhi earlier this year. While some progress is said to have been made in narrowing the ever-growing trade (im)balance in favour of China, Beijing remained stuck on its position on the border issue as well as on a possible collaboration on the Brahmaputra and other trans-border rivers.
After the meeting, it was reported that 'both sides put their faith in the most recent bilateral mechanism, the [2012] Working Mechanism on Border.'
Well, this has not stopped the Chinese from intruding into India's territory.
Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh and her Chinese counterpart Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin (who served many years as Director-General, Department of Treaty and Law in China's ministry of foreign affairs) wanted to finalise a fresh Border Defence Cooperation Agreement, BDCA.
At a time the Chinese regularly try to create trouble on the Line of Actual Control, can a new agreement be more efficient than the previous ones of 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2012?.
One wonders why a new BDCA?

Click here to read...

Why to go to China now?

Why is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh heading towards China?
I am unable to answer this question; in fact, there is no economic, diplomatic or strategic logic.
Of course, it is said that he would like ‘to prioritize investment and business by easing norms for business and tourist visas’ as well as reduce border tensions. But is the timing right?
‘Business’ was the objective of Premier Li Keqiang when he visited Delhi in May. But when Chinese talk about business, they talk about trading from China to India. Mr. Li charmed everybody; he spoke of the Three Idiots, a film that his daughter ‘forced’ him to see, the Indian establishment (and media) melted: “The guy is really nice; he loves Indian movies”. Further, he chose to eat vegetarian food at his Indian counterpart’s banquet. Wow, here is a Chinese leader who is different; he deeply respects our customs; he likes India.
The South China Morning Post then commented that Li’s foreign tour (India, Pakistan, Switzerland and Germany) was a success: “On his maiden, eight-day diplomatic trip as premier, Li Keqiang not only engaged in serious bilateral talks but also attempted to show his personable side to boost the image of the Chinese leadership.”
At that time one of the main issues between India and China was the trade imbalance. Both countries had fixed an ambitious target of US$ 100 billion as the trade turnover by 2015.
Atfer the Li-Singh meeting a Joint Statement was issued: “the two countries agreed to take measures to address the issue of the trade imbalance. These include cooperation on pharmaceutical supervision including registration, stronger links between Chinese enterprises and Indian IT industry, and completion of phytosanitary negotiations on agro-products.”
Last financial year, India's exports to China reached only $ 13.52 billion while its imports were $ 54.3 billion. A trade deficit of $ 40.78 billion is not paltry!
The Times of India then reported that the companies represented in Li Keqiang’s business delegation ‘seem bent on selling instead of buying in the Indian market’.
The question is: has this changed? Let us put the question differently, can a new visit change this?
The Prime Minister is said to be keen on ‘increasing the tenure of business visas [for Chinese] to one year from the current six months with multi-entry provision and ensuring home ministry security clearance within 30 days for project visas’.
How inviting more Chinese companies to set up shop in India will help to reduce the trade imbalance is a mystery.
The Times of India commented: “The emphasis is significant as security concerns dog Chinese investments in several sectors like telecom”.
The relaxation of the visa policy for Chinese nationals will not solve the security issues, further it could only aggravate the trade imbalance.
It sounds like India is trying to be nice to China which again issued ‘stapled’ visas to two Arunachali archers on their way to an international competition to Yunnan; this is called the Gujral doctrine, the nastier you are with me, the nicer I will be with you.
One knows where the infamous ‘doctrine’ led India in the past.
The current reasoning of the Government is that easier visa rules could only help larger exchanges of delegates attending academic or business meetings and conferences. But reciprocity is not guaranteed. You will say that it is the beauty of the ‘doctrine’!
Further, despite warnings from all sides, the Prime Minister is dead bent on signing a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA) during his three-day visit to China, starting from October 22.
Some babus in South Block may have concocted a new Agreement (in what will it be different from the 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2012 agreements nobody knows), which could be shown by the PMO as a justification for the visit.
But will China be more sincere in the implementation of the new agreement than they have been for the previous ones?
Another question, has India done her home work? Probably not. But, the Chinese have done theirs.
The Chinese Defence Minister, General Chang Wanquan has just visited the Xinjiang Military District dealing with the Aksai Chin area and India's border in Ladakh.
According to Xinhua, the Minister "called for a strengthened border and national defense in northwest China's Xinjiang." He spent an entire week on an 'inspection tour' of the region.
Can you imagine Mr. Antony spending a week in Arunachal and visiting the forward posts? One can always argue that it is impossible; he would have to walk for too many days, as India has no roads there.
General Chang took the time to visit military units "to further consolidate border defense and cast a wall of copper and steel in the frontier." What does it mean for India?
Just that China will be ready for any eventuality and the PLA will maintain its pro-active posture in the area.
The Chinese Defence Minister told the military units "to lay a solid basis for Xinjiang's long-term peace and stability by consolidating political power in grassroots governments and stepping up the fight against encroachment, separatist and terrorist activities."
Apart from the border with India, the Xinjiang Military District has to deal with the restive local Uyghurs who are, like the Tibetans, resentful of the 'ethnic' policies imposed by Beijing.
Regarding the border with India, Xinhua reported: "Military units were told to put border and national defense into prominent place and contribute to the consolidation of the defense in China's borders."
Interestingly, General Wang asked the local commanders to take 'initiatives in operations'. Ominous words for India; but nobody seems to be worried on this side of the border.
Xinhua said: "The minister demanded military officers to strengthen strategic thinking, carry forward construction projects as well as take initiatives (in operations)."
One wishes the local Indian commanders would sometimes have the same opportunity to 'take initiatives'.
The Cabinet Committee on Security is said to have discussed the border pact, whose objective is "to prevent face-offs between the troops of the two countries along the over 4,000 km disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC)."
Will it really prevent anything? I can bet that it will not.
In any case a point is certain, the Chinese have done their home work.

Why not a Water Treaty with China?

The Press Trust of India (PTI) reported that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has asked the Chinese President Xi Jinping to set up a joint mechanism with India to assess the construction work on dams on Brahmaputra river in Tibet.
PTI wrote: "Notwithstanding pledges to take the bilateral relationship to a new level, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first meeting with new Chinese President Xi Jinping has sought a joint mechanism to assess the construction work on dams on Brahmaputra river in Tibet."
The Prime Minister told journalists traveling with him in the plane : "I took the opportunity to raise the issue of trans-border river systems. I requested the Chinese government to provide a joint mechanism to enable us to assess the type of construction activity that is going on in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR)."
Apparently, President Xi assured Dr. Singh that China was quite conscious of its responsibilities and 'the interest of the lower riparian countries'.
PTI added: "As regards the specific mechanism that he had asked, the Chinese President told him that they would further look into it."
One could ask, why just a 'joint mechanism' and not a Treaty in the lines of the Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 with Pakistan. 
And what about the Sutlej and the Indus?
The Prime Minister justified his shyness: "But as of now, our assessment is that whatever activity that is taking place on the Brahmaputra region in Tibet, it is essentially run-of-the-river projects and therefore there is no cause of worry on our part."
The only solution lies in bringing the matter to the negotiating table and reach a bilateral (or multilateral) water agreement. If a river-water Treaty could be signed between India and Pakistan, why can not a similar agreement be made between China, India, Bhutan and Bangladesh, in order to assure a decent life for all in the region? 
Further there is Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses adopted by the UN in 1997 (though not yet an international law, because not ratified by enough nations). It could serve as a model for bilateral or multilateral treaties/conventions with China.
But is Beijing interested?
The fruition of the projected mega-projects will entirely depend on the new leadership in China. If he is wise, Xi Jinping will take into account a conflict with the neighbours in calculating the cost-benefits of these mega-projects.
A formal agreement/treaty whether in line with the 1997 UN Water Convention or any other formal agreement is the only solution which can give guarantees to the lower riparian States.
I will not comment on India 'opposing' the Tibetan activities in India.

India opposes "Tibetans to conduct political activities against China"
2013-03-29
Xinhua
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Wednesday that his country recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region is a part of the Chinese territory and that India will not allow Tibetans to conduct political activities against China in India.
Manmohan Singh made the remarks during meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of a summit of BRICS countries -- Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- in the South African port city of Durban on March 27th.
The Indian prime minister said his country, which adheres to an independent foreign policy, will not be used as a tool to contain China, adding that India is willing to make concerted efforts with China to show the world that they are cooperative partners instead of rivals.
India will abide by political guidelines set by both sides and seek a solution to the bilateral border issue from a strategic height with a commitment to safeguard peace in their border areas, he said.
He also voiced the hope that the two countries would respect each other's core interests and major concerns, deepen mutual strategic trust, strengthen coordination and cooperation on international affairs, and safeguard peace and stability in the region and the world at large.

The PM's peculiar trip

My article The PM's peculiar trip (Veni, Vidi, Vici) has been published on Sify.com. Click here to read it.

Veni, Vidi, Vici?

“Veni, Vidi, Vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered). These are the words used by Julius Caesar when he returned to Rome and informed the Senate about his victory over King Pharnaces II during the Battle of Zela, (located in today’s Turkey). He was brief and to the point.
Can Prime Minister Manmohan Singh say the same thing after his return from Europe and more particularly his visit to France which got special attention from the media? It is doubtful.
A first remark: the Indian Prime Minister has not the age of Julius Caesar when he went for his military campaign; the Roman general (not-yet-Dictator) was in his early-fifties, while Dr. Singh is in the second half of his seventies.
You may ask, what is the point to raise this issue?
The answer is simple, in order to ‘conquer’, a general or a Prime Minister needs the energy to do so. Strangely, the babus of South Block had fixed the Prime Minister’s program in such a way that he was scheduled to return to India from the G8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy (where he had a tough Agenda with top world leaders) and leave again just two days later for Europe to attend the French National Day in Paris. A day later, he returned to India via Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt where the 15th Non Aligned Movement summit was held; he was to meet the Pakistan PM on the side of the Summit.
For a person who has been through a by-pass surgery only a few months ago, this hectic schedule seems strange, to say the least. Having myself gone through the painful process of an open heart surgery, I remember how tough it was during the first year to live a normal life. But the Prime Minister is probably fitter than I!
It was rather shocking that the G8, under the influence of the United States, till recently one of India’s supposedly closest allies (do you remember that the first Manmohan Singh government nearly fell when the PM defended his special relation with the US), convinced the other world's richest nations to ban the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing items to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India was targeted.
Of course, South Block is cool, they are “not deeply concerned over the G8 stand”. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee even told the Parliament that New Delhi had received a country-specific clean waiver from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), therefore nothing to worry.
Atomic Energy Chairman Anil Kakodkar was more circumspect; he considered that “it would be a matter of concern” if the G-8 nations insisted on banning transfers of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technology to non-signatories of the NPT.
One could however rightly ask, where was the PM when this decision to include the nuclear rider was included in the G8 statement. Was he not in Italy?
Apart from this, the G8, which has lost its relevance according to most analysts, was quite uneventful, if only for the discussions on climate change which once again demonstrated the gap of perception between the Indian (and Chinese) position and the Western stand. Probably in the end, everyone will have to make compromises and even the ‘emerging’ powers will have to admit that ‘development’ and ‘growth’ do not solve all the problems and could lead sooner or later to some catastrophic scenario for the planet.
Dr Manmohan Singh’s second trip to Europe of was more glamorous and interesting. It provided a better chance for India to ‘conquer’.

We were told that Dr Manmohan Singh was the Chief Guest at the French National Day parade. Before leaving New Delhi (he had just arrived from the G8) he declared that it was ‘an honour for the people of India’. His communiqué added: "India and France enjoy a close and wide ranging strategic partnership. Our relations with France encompass a large number of areas and have served our national interests well. We would like to build upon our partnership in the areas of trade and investment, high technology, space, nuclear energy, defence, education, culture, tourism and scientific research and development." It sounded good.
Despite the media coverage, the footages and images of the glamorous Indian Navy Sikh commander or Carla Bruni’s small talk with Mrs Gursharan Kaur, Dr Manmohan Singh was not the Chief Guest. He was only one of the Guests of Honour with President Hun Sen of Cambodia and the German President, Horset Köhler. The latter was sitting on the right-hand side of President Sarkozy, the place usually reserved for the Chief Guest. This is a detail.
The parade was truly grandiose and millions saw Indian jawans marching down the Champs Elysées (the French believe that it is the most beautiful avenue in the world, though Indians believe it is Rajpath). A rare and exceptional sight.
Of course in today’s world, there is no free meal (even at the Elysée Palace)! Paris needs New Delhi and reciprocally, India needs France, especially when relations with the United States are not as good as they used to be under the Bush Administration. An agreement on refitting 51 French Mirage fighters, is pending for a long time and the price, too high according to New Delhi, had to be thrashed out. A delicious French meal was a good occasion. The subject was on the agenda of the ‘working lunch’ and hopefully, the Mirages will be ‘refitted’ soon and upgraded with more efficient avionics and weapon systems. Some nuclear power plants are also in the pipeline with the French company Areva.
The ‘big deal’ for 126 medium multi-role combat aircrafts which the Indian Air Force badly needs is trickier. A couple of months ago, Dassault’s bid for Rafales was dropped by the Ministry of Defence. The French company was later reintegrated, but many questions remained as the plane is costlier than most of its rivals and it is doubtful if Dassault can deliver the fighters in time without jeopardizing the already ordered planes for the French Air Force and Navy.
Other matters were routine. Dr. Singh renewed an invitation for Sarkozy to visit India. It had already been accepted (remember, the French President had promised to take Carla Bruni to the Taj Mahal).
The Indian Prime Minister and the French President agreed to work in concert in the fight against terrorism. This is already happening.
During the Garden Party at the Elysee palace, President Sarkozy declared that "India's involvement is essential in all major global matters”. No scoop here either.
Anyway, the visit was probably useful to reiterate the 1998 ‘strategic partnership’, even if these two words have no real meaning any longer. It is only a modern avatar of the old Bhai-Bhai policy (India has even today a strategic partnership with China!).
From Paris, Dr Singh continued his journey to Sharm-el Sheikh in Egypt for the NAM Summit and his much-awaited meeting with Yousuf Raza Gilani.
During the SCO Summit in Yekaterinburg (Russia), the Prime Minister told President Zardari that there would be no dialogue with Pakistan until progress was made on the 26/11 enquiry. India’s policy however diametrically changed in Egypt and the press release after the meeting with Geelani stated, 'Both Prime Ministers recognized that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”
Back to square one and returning to India, in time to receive Hilary Clinton who has finally decided to visit India.
All this tribulations show a lack of preparation not to say a lack of direction. Where were the Foreign Minister and his glamorous MoS? It is true that they are inexperienced but was it not an occasion to learn? S.M. Krishna was spotted in Egypt, but he did not accompany the Prime Minister during the other legs of his foreign tours.
Interestingly, Daniel Markey, a scholar at the Council of Foreign Relations has published a telling paper Developing India's Foreign Policy ‘Software’ in which he argues that “India’s own foreign policy establishment hinders the country from achieving great-power status”. He points out four main reasons:
“(1) The Indian Foreign Service is small, hobbled by its selection process and inadequate mid-career training, and tends not to make use of outside expertise;
(2) India’s think-tanks lack sufficient access to the information or resources required to conduct high-quality, policy-relevant scholarship;
(3) India’s public universities are poorly funded, highly regulated, and fail to provide world-class education in the social sciences and other fields related to foreign policy; and
(4) India’s media and private firms—leaders in debating the country’s foreign policy agenda—are not built to undertake sustained foreign policy research or training.”
This is something Indian politicians should ponder about, if they want to ‘conquer’.