One eye on China, India opens up to Japan, Korea

[huzihaidao12]

There are certain issues which are at heart of every country. Kashmir is the issue which India takes to heart…and China has to be sensitive to the issue which India holds dear.

Have you ever thought of Tibet, how many years?

 

[CardSharp]

There are certain issues which are at heart of every country. Kashmir is the issue which India takes to heart…and China has to be sensitive to the issue which India holds dear.

I take your point. China has been callous in its dealings with India. It again goes back to that article I posted. Chinese insularity and Indian insecurity. Beijing hasn't been to careful with Delhi's feelings and that is wrong. I get the sense that China isn't really "needling" India as so many members here claim but it's rather just ... let me use a Chinese phrase here and say "doesn't put Delhi in China's eyes"...


I'm sure chinese members here will know the phrase well.

 

[Jade]

Nonsense why would anyone want unnecessary hostility

That’s right, competition is good but hostility is bad, and I fear India China relations are going the wrong way

 

[Mirza Jatt]

I am generally optimistic about Indo-Sino relationship for 21th century. This setback (whatever the reason for it) seems to have blown over and besides some hurt feelings, things seem on track again.

We can speculate about the timing or why it happened but I'm not sure we civvies will ever find out. China rarely does anything without reason on foreign matters like this and it seems unlikely it did it just to wound Indian pride (which can be prickly at the best of times ).

My be they would have their own reason for that, but IMO this was a wrong move when, both parties agree that agression isnt the solution,and here it was unncessarily needling India in a sensitive matter when china didnt face any such move from India. Hope things just get better.

 

[Nomenclature]

China is holding its Kashmir card just like India is holding its Tibet card.

Officially India recognizes Tibet to be a part of China at the same time hosting the Tibetan government-in-exile. China on the other hand officially professes neutrality on the Kashmir, but from time to time we make some signals whose side we're really on.

This deadlock will continue into the foreseeable future with both parties unwilling to give up their cards. So Sino-Indian relationship will have to be one of partnership with disagreements, just like the Sino-American relationship.

As for Chinese insularity, yes it's true India is not in the Chinese public imagination and most Chinese know or care appalling little about our giant neighbor. But it's not just a Chinese problem. A while ago I was reading an article on China vs India and the author asked why is the American public so incurious about India. If the American public, with their much higher exposure to India by India offshore service providers still know little India, you can't blame China for having a outdated idea of India being the Asian counterpart of sub-Sahara Africa. It's very hard to sell the idea of Indian being an IT superpower to the Chinese public when they're not using any of India's IT services and products.

 

[Hafizzz]

One eye on China, India opens up to Japan, Korea

As it grapples with the growing influence of China, India is learning to reinvent its friendships with Japan and South Korea and position itself as a democratic counterpoise in the wider south-east Asian community.

But even as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh plans to visit Tokyo for his annual summit from October 25-27 — as part of a journey to Hanoi and Kuala Lumpur — and hopes to sign a landmark civil nuclear pact with his counterpart,

Naoto Kan, Japanese resentment against India’s nuclear ambitions continues to simmer.

It has now come to light that India’s ambassador to Japan, H K Singh, did not attend the anti-nuclear ceremonies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki this year, despite the fact that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon flew in from New York to attend. The ambassadors of the US, Britain and France, all victors in the Second World War, were present.

Along with Singh, conspicuous by his absence at the ceremonies was China’s ambassador to Japan.

Considering India refused to retaliate when Japan cancelled its annual $1-billion Official Development Assistance when New Delhi went nuclear in 1998, instead saying it understood Tokyo’s actions as the “only country in the world to have been the victim of a nuclear bomb,” its current insensitivity towards the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem particularly out of place.

This also comes at a time when New Delhi’s stakes in Tokyo are rising exponentially every year. Besides the civil nuclear pact, both sides hope to finally sign an Economic Partnership Agreement, for which Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar will undertake final discussions during his visit to Japan from September 7-9.

As it seeks to counter a rising China, India hopes to cement a sluggish friendship with Seoul, and is sending Defence Minister A K Antony to South Korea on September 1. This will be the first-ever visit by an Indian defence minister to that country and he is expected to sign a wide-ranging memorandum of understanding on defence cooperation.

The PM will also travel to Seoul for the G-20 visit in November, when the grouping is expected to announce India’s enhanced stakes in global financial organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

India’s keenness to expand ties with both South Korea and Japan comes at a time when China’s rising power is increasingly on Delhi’s mind. The latest incident is the diplomatic row over the Chinese denial of a visa to India’s northern army commander, B K Jamwal, in charge of Jammu and Kashmir, but officials in the Ministry of External Affairs say the issue of stapling visas on the Indian passports of the residents of J&K, as well as the refusal of a visa to an IAS officer from the Arunachal Pradesh cadre are “part of the same game-plan”.

On its part, ministry officials say, India is “diplomatically courting” the wider region. About a month ago, Foreign Secretary

Nirupama Rao took a meeting of all India’s ambassadors and high commissioners in South Asia in Yangon, the former capital of Myanmar.

Present at the meeting were also the ambassadors of China and Japan, and as planned, China’s burgeoning influence in South Asia was one of the chief topics of discussion.

The venue for the meeting — a country where India and China are competing for both economic resources, especially oil and gas, as well as political influence — is direct proof, if any was needed, that New Delhi believes that South-East Asia has become the “newest battle-ground of ideas” with its main rival, China.

Clearly, India seems to be taking several leaves out of China’s success stories in the region, but none are more important than the use of economics to pursue diplomatic intent. The India-Japan economic partnership agreement (EPA), for example, comes in the wake of a free trade agreement between India and South Korea signed this January, and is expected to push currently lowly annual trade at $10.4 billion.

Sino-Indian trade already touches $60 billion, even though the trade basket is heavily weighted in favour of raw materials, such as iron ore, from India.

The EPA has overcome a major sticking point in the manufacture and sale of pharma drugs and agreed to trade in goods — as many as 9,000 products, from steel and apparel to machinery — but it is an agreement on trade in services that remains to be resolved.

Accounting for about 55 per cent of the gross domestic product, exports from India’s services sector were valued at $93.7 billion in 2009-10.

One continuing disagreement over Indian health care workers, especially nurses, working in Japan, is an example of how social norms are hampering the conclusion of an agreement that could otherwise be beneficial to both countries: Japan continues to argue that all foreign workers must pass an exam in Japanese that is said to be exceptionally tough, even though its ageing society needs continually large investments in health care. Indonesia, the Philippines — and now India — have offered to send nurses, but the decision to hire foreign workers stems from a national unwillingness to use outside manpower.

Still, as Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada publicly concurred with External Affairs Minister S M Krishna during his recent India visit, the decision to reinvent the G-4 bid for permanent membership of an expanded Security Council could at least bring both establishments — along with Germany and Brazil — closer together.

India will likely be elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2011 from the Asia seat, but it is keen to revive the G-4 debate that was pushed into the background these last years as a result of the blooming Indo-US camaraderie over their nuclear deal.

China, of course, was a major opponent of that nuclear deal even though it fell in line at the bitter end — meanwhile, memories of Jawaharlal Nehru turning down a US invitation in 1954 to become a permanent SC member, and suggesting that India’s “brotherly neighbour” China be given the seat, are being dredged up again these days in New Delhi.

India is also hoping that when US President Barack Obama visits in November, he will openly voice his support for an Indian seat at the Security Council high table.

Meanwhile, in New Delhi recently, Okada and Krishna also agreed that India and Japan would work much more closely in Africa, so as to jointly push the continent’s 53 nations to vote in favour of the G-4 idea in the General Assembly.

No prizes for guessing which Asian nation is topmost in Africa’s consciousness these days — China.

One eye on China, India opens up to Japan, Korea

A string of Samosas by India to encircle China.

 

[your fear]

A string of Samosas by India to encircle China.

a samosa can be danger

don't dare to take panga with samosa moral of the story don't take in light

 

[gpit]

India’s “look easy” policy has been there for nearly a decade Look East policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , yet this article has to admit that India-S Korea friendship has still been “sluggish”. India and Japan has deep feelings of mistrust in terms of unclear power. Further, not mentioned in this article, Australia also distrusts India on unclear issues.

In fact, since the tragic death of India much pumped “democratic alliance” (India, Japan, Australia, S. Korea) aiming at containing China, Indian foreign politicians should have been realized that encircling China politically through India initiative is really difficult, if it is not clownish.

The reasons behind should be straightforward:

1) Ideologically, Western democracy hasn’t been faired well in Asia. Those with limited countries with better performance in democracy are only “abnormal countries” like S. Korea and Japan - They are both occupied countries.

India has been in democracy since its independence, yet it is well recognized that it lags in performance in nearly all areas when compared with non-western-democratic China.

Western worlds’ discrimination against China has been visible to everyone: democratic Thailand used military forces to massacre many in a violent suppression of the democratic movement in that country, not many condemning words have been issued by the westerners, yet many are still obsessed with China’s Tiananmen incident 20+ years ago. Remember, in contrast, democratic Thailand launched helicopters, while PRC did not.

People nowadays have doubt for any actions taken under a slogan of particular ideology.

2) India has been failing so far to understand Chinese culture. This has been reflected in many of Indian foreign policy mistakes as well as failed commercial endeavors. S. Korea and Japan are deeply influenced by Chinese culture. How could India be successful in wooing them without understanding Chinese culture? Thus, if Indians don’t bother to learn Chinese culture and its history, India’s “look east” policy is doomed to be fruitless. Believe me!

3) Too much obsession about “circling China” has raised suspicion in the eastern Asian countries. Many of those countries are even not reluctant to be pawns of USA, how could they be willing India’s pawn? Who are you? Heck, no!

Take Vietnam for example, many Indians are touting about recruiting Vietnam into Indian camp of against China. Dude! Vietnamese have higher IQ than you guys. They know exactly who is their neighbor, what culture their country is based upon, and what have your failed foreign policies yielded.

So reign your free media a little bit, tune down your “China enemy number 1”, “nuclear for China”, “96 hours” etc, fire more Kapoor, Fernandas types of people, to make your potential “allies” feel more comfortable.

Really!

 

[gpit]

... for more than a billion Indians, China is a country from where they get cheap mobile phones and other cheap things, nothing more.

I though Indians are less cheaper than you portrayed here.

I though they deserve better than just cheaper Chinese products.

 

[LaBong]

This is the victim mentality of some Indian members here I cannot stand. Please for the good your own nation, drop this mentality which says "we are such well-intentioned babes in the woods, if only the mean old world would treat us better"

You have to fight for your own in this world, nothing is handed to you on a plate. I'd be ashamed of this kind of weak behaviour if I were a Indian nationalist.

Unless the infectious decease of calling any diplomatic manoeuvre as 'rant' by some members here also has been spread seemingly immune brain of yours too, do enlighten me why India needs to fight or needs to show the victim mentality if China calls Gilgit-Baltistan by some other name than what India prefers? Seems China is also trying to collect some brownie points like some of your posts already managed to.

 

[LaBong]

China is holding its Kashmir card just like India is holding its Tibet card.

Officially India recognizes Tibet to be a part of China at the same time hosting the Tibetan government-in-exile. China on the other hand officially professes neutrality on the Kashmir, but from time to time we make some signals whose side we're really on.

This deadlock will continue into the foreseeable future with both parties unwilling to give up their cards. So Sino-Indian relationship will have to be one of partnership with disagreements, just like the Sino-American relationship.

As for Chinese insularity, yes it's true India is not in the Chinese public imagination and most Chinese know or care appalling little about our giant neighbor. But it's not just a Chinese problem. A while ago I was reading an article on China vs India and the author asked why is the American public so incurious about India. If the American public, with their much higher exposure to India by India offshore service providers still know little India, you can't blame China for having a outdated idea of India being the Asian counterpart of sub-Sahara Africa. It's very hard to sell the idea of Indian being an IT superpower to the Chinese public when they're not using any of India's IT services and products.

For the first part of your post, India never have officially recognized the Tibetan Govt. in exile so it doesn't add up to your argument. China on the other hand, has all the right to be on any side she wants, and I'd be rather happy if China shows who's side she really is on, on a fixed interval, that'll help us to deal with some delusional folks pulling off another Neheru(No I'm not talking about any back-stabbing here!).

For the second part, the sheeple of Republic of India really don't care what netizens of neighbour beyond Himalayas think about India. Trade and diplomatic relations don't build upon public perception. So the collective delusion of common people of China about India and vice versa, at best will contribute to some heated debates on public forums, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[LaBong]

I agree with your final thrust that the "resolution of J&K is a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan where China does not have any role to play as acknolwdged by its own spokesperson."

However, I am not sure what China would or would not do if specifically requested to show certain "gestures".

I will not speculate on the wisdom of showing these "gestures" along the lines of stapling visa. I will say, however, that if these were "unrequested", spontaneous gestures from the CCP upper echelons, then no doubt in my mind they were dumber then I could give them credit for.

Dumb people are everywhere as you know.

So there. I will reiterate that I am more than skeptical of the PRC's little game of stapling visas. As an inconsequential individual, I in fact personally disapprove of them.

Having said that, let's not forget, by being a bi-national issue between India and Pakistan, Kashmir's status is internationally un-determined.

So in a legalistic sort of way, PRC was not "infringing" on Indian soverignty when they did the visa stapling bit.

And for a third time, the above notwithstanding, I don't like it personally.

Now back to the "joint administration" ... why only in Kashmir Valley? I don't know. I am not even saying that. Heck who am I to propose that? I am just throwing out ideas ... that's all.

Finally, "joint administration of Kashmir Valley" is not a gesture to Kashmir per se (I know it's not a politically correct thing to utter), but it is a gesture to Pakistan.

What's more important?

The cake in making peace "with" Kashmir is not making peace with Kashmir, but to make peace with Pakistan, which you know better than any. This separates this conflict from all other "protests" in India, or in Pakistan or China for that matter.

In Balochistan, who is Pakistan to realistically "jointly administer" with? With Iran? They sure are not asking for it.

With the CIA perhaps ... just like Kurdistan, xxxstan ...

First let's strive for "practical" righteousness, then hopefully "moral" righteousness.

No?

Here India could be a leader.

Quite aptly and rather meticulously put; just for debate's sake, couple of from my side Sir.