‘Tread softly, you tread on my dreams’ – China to India

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/04/14/tread-softly-you-tread-on-my-dreams-china-to-india/

For China’s official news agency Xinhua, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter’s India visit was a non-event. The only news significant enough to be reported out of India this week have been the temple tragedy in Kerala last Sunday, which killed 110 people (over which President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang sent condolence messages to their counterparts), and the defence agreement signed by India and the Maldives (which was a ‘non-event’ for most of the Indian media amidst the excitement over the Carter visit.)
A sense of priorities? Or, a genuine understanding of events in India? Or, studied indifference? Of course, a fourth explanation also would be that Xinhua, like most of us in India, is genuinely confused about the icing on the cake of the Carter visit – the signing of the Logistic Supply Agreement (LSA) that would give access to Indian military bases for the US forces.
The fact of the matter is that except for the starry-eyed US lobbyists in the Indian media — and amongst the ex-fauji community — who have opened the champagne bottle (here), one remains unsure as to what exactly is happening. Inter-governmental pacts do not become pacts unless they are a done thing. As the Russians would say, ‘Where is the bumaga(document) here?’ (The US-government owned Voice of America, here, probably shares this sardonic perception about the world of diplomacy.)

From personal experience, I can vouchsafe that the pact on Siachen, which we negotiated with the high-powered Pakistani delegation, which was already waiting in the ante-room of the office of the then Defence Secretary N. N. Vohra (presently J&K governor) in South Block to sign thebumaga one balmy evening in November 1992 — with the PIB and Doordarshan crew already having set up their gear for the historic photo-op — is yet to be signed after 24 long years, and has become moribund.
However, if the Indian intention is to use the unsigned, draft LSA to create diplomatic leverage in the upcoming meetings with top Chinese officials (on three occasions within the week itself), we are probably climbing up the wrong tree. At least, that is the conclusion one can draw from the remarks made by the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman in Beijing on Wednesday when asked about the LSA. He said,

We have noticed some media reports on the US Defense Minister’s visit to India. I want to point out that India is also a country of major significance in the world. It is known to all that India has been upholding an independent foreign policy in international affairs. Like other countries, India makes its foreign policies based on its own interests. This reminds me of the question you raised yesterday, and I want to say that Indian Defense Minister will also visit China in the near future.
Does the remark hint at anxiety? I don’t think so. Heightened curiosity? Not even that. Is it threatening in tone or content? By no means. Studied indifference? Yes, possibly.
It seems unlikely that the Chinese would even think of raising this LSA bit with the Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar who is due in China this weekend on a 4-day visit.
There is a touch of irony here. In reality, the Chinese side has left it to us to lose our virginity. Who are they to put a chastity belt on us? It is our strategic asset – our strategic autonomy – that we would be surrendering and the Chinese would expect us to be mature enough to draw the lessons of history (being an ancient under that has been subjugated and vandalized repeatedly by conquerors to see the debris of contemporary world politics littered around us and be on guard that once the strategic asset of an independent foreign policy is lost, it is lost forever — and we would become, well, another Philippines in Asia. (Which is also essentially what the former Defence Minister A. K. Antony has flaggedhere.)
Simply put, Beijing has gently reminded us that strategic autonomy has its unexpected uses in our difficult, pitiless world.
This fine piece of advice has found it echo in a timely interview given by the Chinese ambassador to India Le Yucheng to an Indian daily newspaper while Ash Carter was actually on our soil. This is what Ambassador Li said when asked about India’s “burgeoning” (to borrow a Carter expression) strategic ties (“strategic handshake”, as Carter would say) with the US, Japan, Australia, et al:
China hopes to see cooperation and friendship of all countries, not conflict and tension. With the expansion of national development and interests, both China and India are destined to reach out and deeply integrate into the world, which is the inevitable trend. China has no objection to India developing normal relations with other countries that are not against any third country. China is also playing an increasingly important role on the international society, and pursues friendly and cooperative relations with all countries.
Countries may have different history, culture and social system, but their interests are intertwined. Mutual respect is especially important in our relationships. We must respect each other’s core interests and concerns, and choice of development path, not interfere in each other’s internal affairs, not engage in military and political alliances against third parties, and remain committed to promoting peace, stability and development of the region and beyond.
The Chinese envoy seems to convey something like this:

It is India’s sole prerogative, consistent with the practice of international diplomacy in our globalized world, including China’s, to maintain diversified external relations, and, being an emerging power, integration with the world community becomes inevitable.

China comes into the picture if and when its interests are affected.

For, Delhi would appreciate that the interests of China and India are “intertwined” (even when they are not common interests), and therefore the ground rules must be kept in view.

Which are, quintessentially, three-fold at the ‘operative level’: a) Respect each other’s “core interests and concerns”; b) Don’t engage in “military and political alliances” that are directed against each other; and, c) Don’t become party to creating tensions and instability in the region.
Indeed, China regards South China Sea regards as a “core issue” and alleges that the US is instigating tensions and creating regional blocs with a view to ‘contain’ China.
However, the salience of what Ambassador Li said (with a touch of Robert Frost) is the bottom line – “The way of China-India relations is still long but promising”. In sum, India should take a long-term perspective on the Sino-Indian relationship instead of impulsively rushing into things it might come to regret later. Significantly, Chinese Foreign Ministry has featured Ambassador LI’s interview on its website (here).