What's new

The Giants of Asia (China & India) Strive for Closer Ties

Raphael

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
5
Country
China
Location
China
The Giants of Asia Strive for Closer Ties | RealClearWorld

A few years back, we had the least known leader for a century, the ultimate committee man, in charge in China, a bright but exhausted economist, wearied by political infighting, as prime minister in India, and machine politicians succeeding each other after brief terms in Japan.

Now those countries - the most powerful in the world except for the US, though Russia and Germany might stake claims - are led by giants: Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, and Shinzo Abe.

Each charismatic, purposeful, and dominant within his own country. Can they work out a way not only to avoid bumping into each other dangerously, but to co-exist and even prosper together? The signs are cautiously promising, but the winds that blow across Asia can always change direction suddenly.

A few days ago we saw Abe stride across America, asking of it a vision for a re-energised role in Asia, the world's largest and most important continent, in a manner that demanded a positive response of the type that the US polity appears no longer capable of providing.

The pathetic attempt by Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, the incomparably incompetent John Kerry, to attract a caucus of Arab leaders to the US to discuss the American embrace of Iran makes for a sorry comparison. Today Modi arrives in Beijing for a three-day visit, his first since becoming Prime Minister a year ago.

Security experts and economists on each side have been billing this encounter with the all-powerful Xi as the latest round in a growing geopolitical contest.

India under Modi has intensified connections with the US, built military co-operation with Vietnam - involved in a bitter maritime dispute with China - and enjoys a special relationship with Abe, as Japan Inc launches a new investment wave into Asia.

In advance of the visit, Chinese media have complained about Modi visiting the disputed border region of Arunachal Pradesh.

Hu Zhiyong of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences wrote in the Global Times that "due to the Indian elites' blind arrogance and confidence in their democracy, and the inferiority of its ordinary people" - an unhappy phrase - "very few Indians are able to treat Sino-Indian relations accurately, objectively and rationally".

He also told the Indian government to "stop supporting the Dalai Lama," who of course lives there. Modi recently obliged, cancelling a meeting scheduled between the Dalai Lama and Amit Shah, president of the Bharatiya Janata Party he leads.

The Indian side has expressed its own concerns about China's extraordinary $50 billion investment in an economic corridor through Pakistan, giving it land access to the port of Gwadar - because the corridor includes disputed territory in Pakistani Kashmir. Modi has moved swiftly to intensify relations with other countries that China has long courted, such as Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, and now Sri Lanka, and Indian Ocean nations Mauritius and the Seychelles.

But the benefits of co-operation can also be immense, given the deep continuing developmental needs of both countries - though with China still well in the lead.

Modi, for instance, signed up India as a founder of China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while Beijing has held out the prospect of a "strategic co-operative partnership". China is escorting India into APEC membership, and leading the construction of new transport links between the countries.

The prospects for improvement are obvious. Total trade between these most populous countries in the world, is only half that between China and Australia.

GavekalDragonomics analyst Tom Miller says this economic potential will only be fulfilled once security concerns no longer overshadow the relationship, and doubts that their "huge trust deficit" can be plugged.

But that's where the vision and authority of these three considerable leaders comes in. Their challenge is to retain their domestic support not only in spite of international deals that bring the three countries closer, but through doing them.
 
.
India -China relation was never bitter in history though centuries. Only after 1962 that things changed unfortunately or otherwise.If the border issues are resolved. I don't see any hostility.I hope it gets resolved while Mr.Modi is there. I believe China relation with Pakistan is more about containing India than economic reasons.
 
.
India -China relation was never bitter in history though centuries. Only after 1962 that things changed unfortunately or otherwise.If the border issues are resolved. I don't see any hostility.I hope it gets resolved while Mr.Modi is there. I believe China relation with Pakistan is more about containing India than economic reasons.

You have the English to thank for. Personally i don't see how it will be resolved any time soon. Guess the dispute will continue to last for a long time
 
.
India -China relation was never bitter in history though centuries. Only after 1962 that things changed unfortunately or otherwise.If the border issues are resolved. I don't see any hostility.I hope it gets resolved while Mr.Modi is there. I believe China relation with Pakistan is more about containing India than economic reasons.

Best wishes to India - China relation
 
.
You have the English to thank for. Personally i don't see how it will be resolved any time soon. Guess the dispute will continue to last for a long time

Yes they have left the subcontinent in eternal mess. Now to solve the border issue both side needs to be practical and respectful. Lets see how quick it gets done.
 
. .
You have the English to thank for. Personally i don't see how it will be resolved any time soon. Guess the dispute will continue to last for a long time

The Brits left the subcontinent in a mess now it is our duty to solve the dispute ASAP & forge strong ties BTW our nations
 
. .
That was a bad translation. "Inferiority" referred to economic productivity, an observation backed up by statistics.

If it refers to economic productivity, I agree
 
.
The most plausible border solution between the two seems to maintain a complete status quo. India in any case is not going to cede Arunachal Pradesh (out of the question to be honest) and it is impractical to believe that the Chinese will throw their claim away from Aksai China. Better for both the countries is to demilitarize the border zones with civili authority maintaining the administration. This will reduce the possibility of diplomatic tension that arises from regular border cris crossing from both the sides.
 
.
The most plausible border solution between the two seems to maintain a complete status quo. India in any case is not going to cede Arunachal Pradesh (out of the question to be honest) and it is impractical to believe that the Chinese will throw their claim away from Aksai China. Better for both the countries is to demilitarize the border zones with civili authority maintaining the administration. This will reduce the possibility of diplomatic tension that arises from regular border cris crossing from both the sides.

See the offer made by Zhou Enlai in 1960:

BBC News - India climbdown may help China border dispute

By Subir Bhaumik
Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
17 April 2012

India has been reluctant to part with any portion of the disputed territory since the 1950s.

It rejected a swap offer made by China's former Prime Minister Zhou Enlai in 1960, asking India to recognise China's control of Aksai Chin in the west as a quid pro quo for China's recognition of the McMahon line.

After rejecting that offer, India initiated a "forward policy" to control the disputed territories in the Himalayas.

--------------

India of course rejected this offer, and carried out the Forward Policy instead. I don't think they are willing to compromise.
 
.
See the offer made by Zhou Enlai in 1960:

BBC News - India climbdown may help China border dispute

By Subir Bhaumik
Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
17 April 2012

India has been reluctant to part with any portion of the disputed territory since the 1950s.

It rejected a swap offer made by China's former Prime Minister Zhou Enlai in 1960, asking India to recognise China's control of Aksai Chin in the west as a quid pro quo for China's recognition of the McMahon line.

After rejecting that offer, India initiated a "forward policy" to control the disputed territories in the Himalayas.

--------------

India of course rejected this offer, and carried out the Forward Policy instead. I don't think they are willing to compromise.
My friend, I know about this offer and it was lack of vision from India that this proposal was not accepted back then. But today, the leadership is much more mature and there is little reason to believe that Indians will reject this solution today. A peaceful boundary is equal to a rapid development of economic and cultural ties between the two civilizations which is a long due.
 
.
My friend, I know about this offer and it was lack of vision from India that this proposal was not accepted back then. But today, the leadership is much more mature and there is little reason to believe that Indians will reject this solution today. A peaceful boundary is equal to a rapid development of economic and cultural ties between the two civilizations which is a long due.

The thing is, even if the offer was made again today, we might not take it ourselves. :P

There is a worry that if the border dispute between China and India is solved, that may give India some breathing room, allowing them to start applying pressure in Tibet again like in 1959. After all, they still host the Tibetan Government in Exile today.

Imagine if it was us who held the "Kashmir Government in Exile" in China? Wouldn't that worry you guys? Or the Manipur Government in Exile, etc. Seems very risky to have a competing government like that, right next door.
 
.
The thing is, even if the offer was made again today, we might not take it ourselves. :P

There is a worry that if the border dispute between China and India is solved, that may give India some breathing room, allowing them to start applying pressure in Tibet again like in 1959. After all, they still host the Tibetan Government in Exile today.

Imagine if we held the "Kashmir Government in Exile" in China? Wouldn't that worry you guys? Or the Manipur Government in Exile, etc.
India's support to the Tibetan refugees is merely sympathetic and we do not provide them with arms and logistical assistance unlike what the NE insurgent groups are managing to get from China indirectly. India, since it became republic has maintained a consistent stand on Tibet and that is Tibet is an autonomous part under the Chinese Suzerainty; Political control that had been continuing since 600 AD till the last days of Manchu dynasty, after which the Chinese political control over Tibet gradually hardened. We technically do not support any freedom movement but a government performing under the Chinese hegemony.Anti-Chinese protests quite reasonably have been ruthlessly curbed down if you look at the events in recent past. Precisely states India's position on this issue.

India cracks down on Tibetan protests during Chinese leader's visit | World news | The Guardian

Tibetan protests banned in Arunachal - The Times of India
 
.
India's support to the Tibetan refugees is merely sympathetic and we do not provide them with arms and logistical assistance unlike what the NE insurgent groups are managing to get from China indirectly. India, since it became republic has maintained a consistent stand on Tibet and that is Tibet is an autonomous part under the Chinese Suzerainty; Political control that had been continuing since 600 AD till the last days of Manchu dynasty, after which the Chinese political control over Tibet gradually hardened. We technically do not support any freedom movement but a government performing under the Chinese hegemony.Anti-Chinese protests quite reasonably have been ruthlessly curbed down if you look at the events in recent past. Precisely states India's position on this issue.

India cracks down on Tibetan protests during Chinese leader's visit | World news | The Guardian

Tibetan protests banned in Arunachal - The Times of India

I take your meaning sir.

However check out this article from the New York Times (American newspaper):

New York Times - World News Briefs - Dalai Lama Group Says It Got Money From C.I.A.

The Tibetan Government in Exile was hosted by India in 1959, and in this article they themselves admit they were "training volunteers" and "carrying out guerilla operations" against China in the 1960's, which is AFTER they had been hosted by India, and when they were based in India.

You can say "India has no intent" to destabilize Tibet, however even if that was true, "intentions" don't really matter in Realpolitiks. In Realpolitik what matters is capabilities and facts on the ground, and it's a fact India could cause more problems in Tibet than any other country in the world, due to the fact that they border Tibet and host the Tibetan Government in Exile.

Solving the border issue therefore would hand all the leverage back to India, which seems like a bad deal for us. It would basically give India a free hand to destabilize Tibet (IF they chose to do so), and our hand would be empty of cards.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom